Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site

Management Plan 2015

Stonehenge, Avebury and

Associated Sites World Heritage Site

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage SiteManagement Plan 2015

Written by Sarah Simmonds and Beth Thomas

Published in May 2015 on behalf of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Steering Committees

Editors Elizabeth Nichols and Rachel Tyson

WO

RLD

HERITAGE PATRIMOIN

E M

ON

DIA

L

PATR

IMONIO MUNDIAL

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sitesinscribed on the World Heritage List in 1986

United Nationsd cational cienti c and

Cultural Organization

2 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015

CONTENTSFOREWORD 6

PREFACE 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8

PART ONE: THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

THE STONEHENGE AND AVEBURY WORLD HERITAGE SITE

Introduction 10

The Vision for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site 10

Priorities for 2015–2021 11

1.0 FUNCTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN 12

1.1 The need for the Plan 121.2 The status of the Plan 131.3 The purpose of the Plan 131.4 The structure of the Plan 131.5 The process of developing the Plan – combining the two Plans 131.6 Data sources 141.7 Equal opportunities statement 15

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE 15

2.1 Location and boundary of the World Heritage Site 152.2 Description of the World Heritage Site 162.3 Significance of the World Heritage Site: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 242.4 Historic environment and cultural heritage values 372.5 Landscape and biodiversity values 382.6 Educational and research values 422.7 Social, artistic and spiritual values 432.8 Tourism and economic values 45

3.0 REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS 46

3.1 Evaluation of the 2005 and 2009 Management Plans 463.2 Evaluation of the Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005 473.3 Evaluation of the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009 503.4 Changes in governance of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 523.5 Changes in knowledge since 2005/2009 52

4.0 CURRENT POLICY CONTEXT 55

4.1 UNESCO policies and guidance 554.2 Planning and policy framework 584.3 Relationship to other statutory and non-statutory management plans and strategies 604.4 Legal Protection of the WHS 604.5 English Heritage Conservation Principles 624.6 Historic environment designations 624.7 Landscape and nature conservation designations 63

5.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CONTEXT 65

5.1 Developments since the 2005 and 2009 Management Plans 655.2 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS governance review 655.3 The local Steering Committees 665.4 Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group 675.5 The WHS Coordination Unit 675.6 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel 68

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015

3

5.7 Chair of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel 685.8 Working groups and liaison with key partners 685.9 Funding arrangements for the WHS Coordination Unit 685.10 Ownership and management roles 695.11 The Local Authority 705.12 Historic England 715.13 English Heritage 715.14 The National Trust 725.15 Natural England 725.16 North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding National Beauty 735.17 The military 735.18 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 735.19 Museums 745.20 The local community 745.21 Agriculture 765.22 Agri-environmental schemes 775.23 Woodland and forestry management 78

PART TWO: KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

6.0 INTRODUCTION TO KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 80

PROTECT 7.0 PLANNING AND POLICY 81

7.0 Introduction 817.1 Evolving UNESCO policies and guidance 817.2 Changes to the English planning system and local government structure 837.3 Concordance with other statutory and non-statutory strategies and plans 857.4 Development management 877.5 WHS boundary and the setting of the WHS 91

CONSERVE

8.0 CONSERVATION 95

8.0 Introduction 958.1 Condition of archaeological monuments and sites in the WHS 968.2 Monument management 988.3 The setting of the WHS and its attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) 1028.4 Agriculture 1078.5 Nature conservation 1118.6 Climate change 1168.7 Risk management and counter-disaster preparedness 117

PRESENT AND TRANSMIT

9.0 VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 117

9.0 Introduction 1179.1 Recent developments in the tourism context of the WHS 1189.2 Sustainable tourism 1209.3 Visitor management 1229.4 Economic benefit of the WHS to the wider community 1299.5 Public access 1329.6 Solstice management 135

10.0 INTERPRETATION, LEARNING AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 138

10.0 Introduction 138


10.1 Developments in interpretation of the WHS 13810.2 Museums and archives of the WHS 14110.3 Presentation, interpretation and visibility of archaeological monuments and sites 14210.4 Developments in learning within the WHS 14310.5 Community involvement in the WHS 14710.6 Volunteers in the WHS 15010.7 Using the creative art sector to help communities engage with the WHS 15110.8 The identity and message of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 15210.9 Meeting the objectives of UNESCO and UK Government 154

11.0 ROADS AND TRAFFIC 156

11.0 Introduction 15611.1 Highways network and usage 15611.2 Road safety and ease of movement 16711.3 Car parking facilities and usage 16911.4 Byways 17211.5 Public transport provision and sustainable travel to the WHS 174

12.0 RESEARCH 177

12.0 Introduction 17712.1 The importance of research in the WHS 17712.2 Sustainable archaeological research 17912.3 Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework 18012.4 Archaeological research themes and questions 18112.5 Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group 18212.6 Archiving of archaeological finds, paper archives and data 18312.7 Improving access to results and data 18412.8 Increasing public benefit of research 18512.9 Other areas of research 186

13.0 MANAGEMENT, LIAISON AND MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS 187

13.1 Management and liaison within the WHS 18713.2 Funding and resources 18813.3 Relationship between Stonehenge and Avebury parts of the WHS 18913.4 Monitoring and reviewing the Plan 18913.5 WHS governance structure 19013.6 Monitoring indicators 190

PART THREE: AIMS AND POLICIES

14.0 INTRODUCTION TO AIMS AND POLICIES 192

14.1 Aims and policies 192 PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

15.0 PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 196

15.1 Partnership working 19615.2 Management principles 19615.3 Annual action plan 19715.4 WHS governance role in implementation 19715.5 Introduction to Aims, Policies and Actions table 19815.6 Acronyms 19915.7 Aims, Policies and Actions table 201


5

BIBLIOGRAPHY 246

ENDNOTES 253

APPENDICES 256

A. Membership and terms of reference of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Steering Committees 256

B. Role of the Chair of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel 259C. Terms of reference and procedures of the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

(ASAHRG) 260D. The role of the World Heritage Site Coordination Unit 262E. The WHS Management Plan consultation process 263F. Bodies with an interest in the WHS 266G. Reports and decisions from the World Heritage Committee and Bureau

referring to the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 267H. Local planning policies of relevance to Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 273I. Article 4 Directions in relation to land around Stonehenge and Avebury 280J. Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Public Buildings and Works Concordat

on future building work at Larkhill and Concordat Map 284K. Detailed archaeological description of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 286L. Statement of principles governing archaeological work in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS 290M. Stonehenge Regulations 1997 292

MAPS 296

1. Stonehenge and Avebury WHS location map 2962. The Stonehenge WHS 2973. Stonehenge – Archaeology and land use 2984. Stonehenge – Grassland reversion since 2000 2995. Stonehenge – Access 3006. Stonehenge – Land ownership 3017. Stonehenge – Heritage designations 3028. Stonehenge – Landscape and nature conservation designations 3039. Stonehenge – Landscape character 30410. Stonehenge – Habitat survey 30511. Stonehenge – Visual sensitivity 30612. Regional landscape characterisations 30713. The Avebury WHS 30814. Avebury – Archaeology and land use 30915. Avebury – Grassland reversion since 2000 31016. Avebury – Access 31117. Avebury – Land ownership 31218. Avebury – Heritage designations 31319. Avebury – Landscape and nature conservation designations 31420. Avebury – Landscape character 31521. Avebury – Habitat survey 31622. Avebury – Visual sensitivity 317

FACTS AND FIGURES 320

GLOSSARY 322

INDEX 327


I am very pleased to present this first joint Management Plan for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site.

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites is one of Britain’s best known World Heritage Sites and Wiltshire is proud to be the home of this international icon. As well as providing a strong identity for Wiltshire and helping to attract inward investment to the County, the many visitors to the Site generate income and employment for our residents.

Management Plans provide the frameworks for the protection and management of World Heritage Sites to ensure both the maintenance of their Outstanding Universal Value and guide their continued sustainable use. They are fundamental to meeting the UK’s international obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

Wiltshire Council welcomes the commitment demonstrated by central government through their investment in working to achieve a solution to the challenges related to the A303 which will protect the World Heritage Site and maintain its OUV. The Council demonstrates its ongoing commitment by hosting the World Heritage Site Coordination Unit in partnership with

FOREWORD

By Jane Scott, Leader, Wiltshire Council

Historic England. The Wiltshire Core Strategy produced by the Council includes a robust policy for the protection of the World Heritage Site.

This first joint Stonehenge and Avebury Plan demonstrates the desire by all partners to work more closely together across Wiltshire. This will enable the protection and enhancement of both parts of the World Heritage Site to be achieved in the most efficient and sustainable manner and its potential benefits to the County and the community to be more fully realised. One of the actions in the Plan is the development of a sustainable tourism strategy, which aims to encourage some of the one and a quarter million visitors to Stonehenge to stay longer and explore the wider World Heritage Site landscape and the County.

I am grateful to all those people and organisations who have worked together on numerous projects in both parts of the World Heritage Site since its inscription in 1986 to bring about positive benefits for Wiltshire and the UK. I am sure that this joint Management Plan will prove invaluable for the continued protection and enhancement of this internationally important site.

Jane Scott OBE


7

PREFACE

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site covers approximately 52 square kilometres of land in Wiltshire. This land is densely packed with some of the finest prehistoric monuments in the world. The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan sets out the strategy for the protection of the Site for present and future generations. It explains the international significance of the Site, outlines the key management issues and our long-term aims, as well as the detailed actions for achieving them.

The decision to create a joint Stonehenge and Avebury Plan reflects recent changes in the governance structure of the World Heritage Site. These changes include the establishment of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Partnership Panel to consider issues that affect both parts of the World Heritage Site. The Panel also identifies opportunities for improving awareness and understanding of the importance of the whole Site through innovative projects in keeping with the aims of the Plan.

These changes also included the establishment in 2014 of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Coordination Unit to work across the whole Site. The Coordination Unit has been instrumental in the preparation of this joint Plan and will work thematically with partners across both parts of the World Heritage Site to implement its actions. This approach will ensure the most efficient use of resources and help protect and enhance the World Heritage Site as well as increase benefits for the local and wider community. The two Steering Committees at Stonehenge and Avebury continue

to make key decisions and to monitor the implementation of the Management Plan at a local level. The representation of the local community on these Committees ensures that they remain closely involved in the management of the World Heritage Site. The chairs of both Committees are represented on the Partnership Panel.

Developing this first joint Management Plan has involved a large number of people and organisations. We are very grateful for all their commitment and support. I should particularly like to thank the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan Project Board members for their invaluable help and advice to the authors throughout the process. I would also like to thank members of the Steering Committees, the Advisory Forum and wider stakeholders who have contributed their time, experience and knowledge at a number of stages during the production of the Plan.

On behalf of all the partners I would like thank the authors of this Plan who have risen admirably to the challenge of producing the first joint Management Plan. They have undertaken an exemplary process of comprehensive and meaningful engagement across the partnership and with the wider public to ensure an invaluable far-reaching consensus on the framework for management of the World Heritage Site and agreement on the actions that will be undertaken to achieve its protection and enhancement. Thanks to their hard work we have an invaluable document to guide our stewardship of the World Heritage Site over the next six years.

Alistair Sommerlad

Chair

Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

Partnership Panel


In 2013 both local Steering Committees agreed to the production of the first joint Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan. This was in response to a number of factors not least the recommendation by UNESCO that serial WHSs should have a coordinated approach to management and the subsequent changes proposed by the governance review. The two Coordinators and WHS partners were already working successfully on a number of joint projects affecting both parts of the World Heritage Site such as the WHS Climate Change Risk Assessment, the WHS Woodland Strategy, the WHS Condition Survey, the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework and Megalith (the annual Stonehenge and Avebury newsletter). The move to a more joined up approach to management planning was therefore quite natural. The WHS Coordination Unit was tasked with producing the first joint Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan.

As authors of the Management Plan we would like to thank all those individuals and organisations who worked alongside us in its development which was essentially a partnership effort. We could not have achieved this without their help, support and generosity in sharing their expertise, knowledge and experience. The excellent track record of partnership working and positive relationships in the WHS has enabled us to produce a widely supported Plan based on broad consensus.

In particular we would like to thank the members of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Project Board who worked with us on the complicated process of developing the aims, policies and actions and designing the consultation process. The members of the Project Board were: Roger Fisher (Amesbury Town Council), Colin Shell (Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group), Andrew Williamson (Avebury Parish Council), Richard Osgood (Defence Infrastructure Organisation), Simon Ramsden and Phil McMahon (Historic England), Jan Tomlin and Nick Snashall (National Trust), Stephanie Payne (Natural England), Henry Oliver (North Wessex Downs AONB), Patrick Cashman (RSPB), Ariane Crampton, Georgina Clampitt-Dix, Sarah Hughes and Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger (Wiltshire Council).

The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Steering Committees have provided invaluable support and advice throughout the process. We would also like to thank them for their pivotal role in the implementation of previous plans and look forward to their continued help and support in the implementation of this new Plan. In addition to the members of the Committees who were on the Project Board and are named above we would like to express our gratitude to: David Andrews, Peter Bailey, Robin Butler, Bill Buxton, Patrick Cashman, Richard Crook, Kate Davies, David Dawson, Susan Denyer, Kate Fielden, Adrian Green, Andrew Lord, Philip Miles, John Mills, Cllr Jemima Milton, Martin Northmore-Ball, Richard Ormerod, Norman Parker, Andy Shuttleworth, Carole Slater, Gillian Swanton, Cllr Fred Westmoreland and Mike Wilmott. Special thanks go to the chairs of both Committees who worked closely with us on helping to progress to a final agreed draft: Roger Fisher (Stonehenge) and Andrew Williamson (Avebury).

We would like to thank the WHS Partnership Panel for its valuable strategic advice on the Plan. In addition to those members mentioned above we are grateful to Councillor Stuart Wheeler, Wiltshire Council’s portfolio holder for Heritage and Arts and Andrew Vines, the Planning and Conservation Director for the South West (Historic England), as well as our supportive and insightful Independent Chair Alistair Sommerlad.

The advice of Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) was extremely valuable most particularly in shaping the section on Research. We are grateful for the assistance of all members of this group.

We would like to thank the Stonehenge Advisory Forum and the wider stakeholders from both parts of the WHS who attended the three workshops held as part of the review of the previous plans and the development of this one. We would also like to thank Hilary Barnett for her assistance in facilitating the workshops.

In addition to those already mentioned we have been generously assisted by many colleagues from partner organisations. From English Heritage and Historic England these included in particular Susan Greaney who contributed to the Changes in knowledge section and elsewhere in the text, Henry Owen-John, Head of International Advice; Matthew Reynolds and Tom Duane who prepared the maps; Mel Coussens, Paul Backhouse and Damian Grady who helped to source photographs; Robin Taylor and Elaine Pooke who advised on the production of this document as well as the many who commented on the draft text. At Wiltshire Council thanks are due to Faye Glover (Historic Environment Record); Rachel Foster, Clare King and Tom Sunley, of the Archaeology Service; Yvonne Bowman, Mark Cook, Alan Creedy, Sophie Davies, Spencer Drinkwater, Fiona Elphick, Emma Glover, Laura Gosling, Carole Hayslip, Louise Kilgallen, Stephen Leonard, Sarah Marshall, Chris Minors, Phil Morgan, Maxine Russell and James Sutton. We would also like to thank both the Wiltshire and Swindon Library Services and the Avebury Social Centre who provided venues for our public consultation sessions. At the National Trust invaluable help and support was provided by Ros Cleal and Eleanor Eaton in addition to those already mentioned above.

Our sincere thanks go to the authors of previous plans: Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger, Christopher Young, Amanda Chadburn and Isabelle Bedu for providing a firm foundation on which to build this first joint plan.

Our thanks also go to all those who helped in the production of this Plan including our editors, proof reader and designer. We would like to acknowledge those who helped us source photographs including Brian Edwards with a particular vote of thanks to Steve Marshall for his fine photography that appears in a number of places in the Plan.

Sarah Simmonds

Beth Thomas World Heritage Site Coordination Unit

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Part One

The Management Plan and the significance of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

West Kennet Long Barrow © K040320 Historic England

10 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part One: The Management Plan and the significance of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

Part One: The Management Plan and the significance of the

Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

Introduction

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site was inscribed in 1986. Located in the county of Wiltshire, it is in two parts, some 40km apart, focused respectively on the great stone circles of Stonehenge and Avebury.

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site is internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments. Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world, while Avebury is the largest. Together with interrelated monuments, and their associated landscapes, they demonstrate Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and mortuary practices resulting from around 2,000 years of continuous use and monument building between c 3,700 and 1,600 BC. As such they represent a unique embodiment of our collective heritage.

The Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site (WHS) covers c 2,600 hectares around Stonehenge itself, and comprises one of the richest concentrations of early prehistoric monuments in the world. Avebury covers a similar area focused on the great Henge and Stone Circles and includes Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe. Other key monuments include Windmill Hill and the West Kennet Long Barrow.

Stonehenge and Avebury are both popular tourist destinations with around 1,250,000 visitors a year at Stonehenge and approximately 300,000 at Avebury but the WHS is also a place where people live and work and much of it is farmed. Managing the various interests and concerns to protect and enhance the World Heritage Site and maintain its significance or Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is a complex and challenging task.

This Management Plan sets the overarching strategy for achieving the correct balance between conservation, access, the interests of the local community and the sustainable use of the Site, whether for recreation and tourism, or for agriculture. The primary aim of the strategy is to protect the Site to sustain its OUV as agreed by UNESCO, provide access and interpretation for local people and visitors, and allow its continued sustainable economic use. The Aims, Policies and Actions table in Part Four sets out how partners will work together to achieve this aim.

The Vision for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site is universally important for its unique and dense concentration of outstanding prehistoric monuments and sites which together form a landscape without parallel. We will work together to care for and safeguard this special area and provide a tranquil, rural and ecologically diverse setting for it and its archaeology. This will allow present and future generations to explore and enjoy the monuments and their landscape setting more fully. We will also ensure that the special qualities of the World Heritage Site are presented, interpreted and enhanced where appropriate, so that visitors, the local community and the whole world can better understand and value the extraordinary achievements of the prehistoric people who left us this rich legacy. We will realise the cultural, scientific and educational potential of the World Heritage Site as well as its social and economic benefits for the community.

Avebury Stone Circle

© K

0208

02 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part One: The Management Plan and the significance of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

11

The priorities of the 2015–2021 Management Plan are to:

1. Protect buried archaeology from ploughing and enhance the setting of sites and monuments by maintaining and extending permanent wildlife-rich grassland and managing woodland and scrub

2. Protect monuments from damage by burrowing animals

3. Reduce the dominance and negative impact of roads and traffic and ensure any improvements to the A303 support this

4. Improve the interpretation and enhance the visitor experience of the wider landscape

5. Ensure any development is consistent with the protection and, where appropriate, enhancement of the monuments and their settings and the wider WHS landscape and its setting

6. Spread the economic benefits related to the WHS to the community and wider county

7. Encourage local community engagement with the WHS

8. Encourage sustainable archaeological research and education to improve and communicate the understanding of the WHS.

Priorities for 2015–2021

The primary purpose of this Management Plan is to guide all interested parties on the care and management of the World Heritage Site to sustain its Outstanding Universal Value. This will ensure the effective protection, conservation and presentation of the World Heritage Site for present and future generations. It will also ensure that all decisions affecting the World Heritage Site move towards the achievement of the Vision.

The ongoing and overarching priority of the Management Plan is to encourage the sustainable management of the WHS, balancing its needs with those of the farming community, nature conservation, access, landowners and the local community.

Traffic on the A303

© N

0807

19 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Frosty sunrise at Silbury Hill

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


1.0 FUNCTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.1 The need for the Plan

1.1.1 World Heritage Sites are recognised as places of Outstanding Universal Value under the terms of the 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention). By signing the Convention, the United Kingdom Government has undertaken to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit such Sites to future generations (UNESCO 1972, Article 4). It is for each government to decide how to fulfil these commitments. In England, this is done through the statutory spatial planning system, designation of specific assets and the development of WHS Management Plans.

1.1.2 UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (2013) say:

108. Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which must specify how the Outstanding Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.

109. The purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations.

1.1.3 Since 1994 it has been UK Government policy that all UK World Heritage Sites should have Management Plans.

1.1.4 I n April 2014 Further Guidance on World Heritage Sites was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government.1 It states that:

Management plans need to be developed in a participatory way, fully involving all interested parties and in particular those responsible for managing, owning or administering the Site. Each plan should be attuned to the particular characteristics and needs of the site and incorporate sustainable development principles.

Given their importance in helping to sustain and enhance the significance of the World Heritage Site, relevant policies in management plans need to be taken into account by local planning authorities in developing their strategy for the historic or natural environment

(as appropriate) and in determining relevant planning applications.

1.1.5 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is part of a dynamic landscape which has been evolving over the last ten thousand years. The nature of the landscape, multiple ownership, the involvement of several agencies and organisations, and competing land uses create complex challenges for the management of the Site. The Management Plan must, therefore, take a holistic and strategic approach to provide a framework for management.

1.1.6 All effective conservation is concerned with the appropriate management of change. Conserving the Site is fundamental but some change is inevitable if it is to respond to the needs of present-day society. Effective management of a WHS is therefore concerned with identification and promotion of change that will respect and enhance the Site and maintain its OUV, with the avoidance, modification or mitigation of changes that might damage this. It is also necessary to develop policies for the sustainable use of the Site for the benefit of the local community and wider communities and the economy.

1.1.7 It is essential that all change is carefully planned and that competing uses are reconciled without compromising the overriding commitment to protect the Site and maintain its OUV. WHS Management Plans are intended to resolve such potential conflicts and to achieve the appropriate balance between conservation, access and interpretation, the interests of the local community, and the sustainable economic use of the Site. They must also be capable of being implemented within the means available to achieve this.

1.1.8 The first Management Plan was produced for Avebury in 1998.2 The Stonehenge Management Plan was produced soon after this in 2000.3 Updated plans were produced for Avebury in 20054 and Stonehenge in 2009.5 The 2015 Plan is the first joint Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan.

1.1.9 Much has been achieved to fulfil the objectives of the 2005 and 2009 Plans (see Section 3.0 below). However, some objectives have proved more challenging. The review process has provided the opportunity to revisit these objectives, reassess their continuing relevance and identify new approaches to achieving them. Regular review of WHS Management Plans is recommended as


13

best practice and a review of this Plan is scheduled for 2021.

1.2 The status of the Plan

1.2.1 Within the UK, WHS Management Plans are recommended in Government planning guidance and are a material consideration in planning decisions. Management Plans provide an advisory policy framework for guiding and influencing planned or potential management initiatives at a variety of scales and for different purposes. They depend for their effectiveness on consensus among the key stakeholders involved in the WHS and willingness on their part to work in partnership towards the achievement of the agreed objectives in these Plans. Once endorsed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Management Plans are referred to UNESCO.

1.2.2 The Management Plan brings together the policies and aspirations of a number of different bodies involved with the WHS. At the same time, it sets out a management framework for the WHS. Individual stakeholders should use it to influence their own strategic and action plans as these are reviewed and implemented over the life of this Management Plan. The Government has confirmed that the Management Plan will remain the primary strategic document for the WHS.

1.3 The purpose of the Plan

1.3.1 The main purpose of the Management Plan is to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS by ensuring the effective protection, conservation and presentation of the WHS and its transmission to future generations. The OUV, as well as the wider significance and value of the WHS, is discussed further in Section 2. It is, however, the OUV of the Site which makes it important in global terms for all humanity, and which is therefore the main focus of and reason for the Plan. To sustain the OUV, it is necessary to protect and manage all the attributes of OUV which contribute towards it. Additionally, there are a number of other aspects and values of the Site (such as ecological value) which need to be managed and/or enhanced. ‘Conservation’ in the context of this Plan includes not only ensuring the physical survival of the archaeological sites and monuments and/or the improvement of their condition, but also enhancing their landscape setting, increasing biodiversity and improving the interpretation and understanding of the WHS as a ‘landscape without parallel’6. Continued research into all aspects of the WHS will be fundamental

to increasing our understanding, informing appropriate future management and enhancing its interpretation.

1.3.2 To achieve the primary aim of protecting the WHS through the maintenance of its OUV, this Plan provides an integrated approach to its management. The needs of various WHS partners and stakeholders with varying sets of values are recognised and built into a proposed holistic response. Aims and policies for achieving an appropriate balance are set out in Part Three of the Management Plan.

1.4 The structure of the Plan

1.4.1 The structure of the Plan comprises: A description of the WHS, and the Statement of

OUV, a description of other values; an assessment of the 2005 and 2009 Plans; the current planning and policy context; and the current management context (Part One)The identification of the main issues affecting the WHS and relevant opportunities and a discussion of the agreed response and actions (Part Two)The aims (long term), and policies (short to medium term) (Part Three)The approach to implementation of the aims, policies and actions and agreed actions to address the management issues (Part Four).

1.4.2 Supporting information is provided at the end of the Plan as appendices, maps and glossary.

1.5 The process of developing the Plan – combining the two Plans

1.5.1 In 2011 the Avebury WHS Steering Committee agreed to the revision of the Avebury 2005 Plan. A review of

Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005, Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009


the 2005 Plan was carried out from May 2012 and was completed in December 2012. The Committee signed off the resulting issues and objectives in April 2013. The review consisted of a wider stakeholder workshop followed by professional focus groups to look at the detail of the Plan, a web-based consultation and drop-in sessions held by the Avebury WHS Officer in Avebury and Marlborough. A project board was set up by the Steering Committee to oversee the review and production of the Management Plan. This was made up of a representative selection of key partners in the WHS together with community representatives.

1.5.2 In 2012 a wider review of governance of the WHS, outlined in Section 5.2 below, recommended closer working between Stonehenge and Avebury. In the spirit of this recommendation both the local Steering Committees agreed to the production of a joint management plan in April 2013.

1.5.3 In September 2013 a review began of the 2009 Stonehenge WHS Management Plan. This followed a similar process to the Avebury review outlined above and was completed by December 2013.

1.5.4 The draft aims, policies and actions were approved by both the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Committees in July 2014. Over the spring and summer the text for Parts One and Two were developed by the WHS Coordination Unit. The Unit is very grateful for the support and advice of the Project Board and other individuals whose expertise, knowledge and experience has helped shape the aims, policies, actions and the text of the Plan.

1.5.5 In the autumn of 2014 a draft Management Plan was circulated to key partners, the Steering Committees

as well as the Project Board to ensure accuracy and to gain agreement prior to public consultation.

1.5.6 It was agreed that the Plan would be issued for full public consultation according to the guidelines set out in Wiltshire Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.7 This helps to provide further weight to the Management Plan which is recognised as a material consideration in determining planning applications.

1.5.7 The 12-week public consultation began on 8 December 2014 and closed on 1 March 2015. The Plan was revised in the light of the responses and then agreed by the two Steering Committees for submission to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in April 2015. Once endorsed by the Secretary of State, the Plan was forwarded to UNESCO for consideration by its World Heritage Committee. Details of the extensive consultation process and outcomes can be found at Appendix E.

1.5.8 The Plan blends the aspirations, expertise and knowledge of the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Steering Committees, compromising a wide range of partners and professionals with the considerable body of existing management information prepared for the WHS over the last 30 years. A full list of documents consulted in the preparation of the Plan is included in the Bibliography.

1.5.9 The Plan reflects the single Statement of OUV as well as the very similar challenges faced by both Stonehenge and Avebury. It also recognises and addresses their different characteristics and specific management requirements where appropriate. The joint Plan is in part a synthesis and update of the Avebury 2005 and the Stonehenge 2009 Management Plans and largely follows the format of the latter. The first joint Plan provides a comprehensive framework for management and a single reference document for managers, residents, students and individuals.

1.6 Data sources

1.6.1 The revision of the Management Plan has drawn on the data collected for all preceding Management Plans: the Avebury 1998 and 2005 and the Stonehenge 2000 and 2009 Plans. It has also drawn on the large amount of data collected since 2009. This includes data in the Historic Environment Record (HER) maintained by Wiltshire Council and an historic Stonehenge and Avebury Geographical Information System (GIS) held by Historic England. The GIS incorporates licensed

WHS Wider Stakeholder Workshop, Antrobus House, Amesbury May 2014

© B

rian

Edw

ards


15

data which is kept up to date by other bodies. The ownership maps within this Plan (Maps 6 and 17) for example ultimately derive from data held by the Land Registry. There is work to be done to ensure that this resource is comprehensive, up to date and maintained. In principle, the Historic Environment Record (HER) held by Wiltshire Council should be the repository for all data related to the WHS. Further work is required to understand the extent of the resource and ensure that data held by Historic England is transferred to the HER. This issue is discussed in Section 12.0 (Research).

1.6.2 The Plan has also drawn on other key documents which have been published since 2009 including the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Condition Survey 2012, the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy 2015, the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy 2015 and the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework 2015. Archaeological surveys and reports outlined in Section 3.5 (Changes in Knowledge) have also provided valuable data.

1.7 Equal opportunities statement

The World Heritage Site Management Plan has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to: 1. ensure that in its actions and policies these have a

due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited under this Act;

2. advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

3. foster good relationships between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

The Management Principles set out in Section 15.2 enshrine the way that the WHS Management Plan will work to foster good relationships between partners and the local community. In addition, all partners have a responsibility to comply with the Equality Act as it applies to their own organisation.

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE

2.1 Location and boundary of the World Heritage Site

Location Country: England, within the United Kingdom

County: Wiltshire

Parishes: Stonehenge: Durrington, Shrewton, Amesbury, Winterbourne Stoke and Wilsford cum Lake

Avebury: Avebury, Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne Monkton, Fyfield and West Overton

Name of World Heritage Site: Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (C373)

Date of Inscription on to World Heritage List: 1986, on the nomination of the UK Government

The WHS and its boundaries

See Map 1 – Stonehenge and Avebury WHS location map

2.1.1 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is a serial WHS made up of two landscape areas separated by c 40km. Stonehenge is in the south of Wiltshire and Avebury is in the north of the county. Each chalkland landscape covers approximately 2,600 hectares or 26 square kilometres.

See Map 2 – The Stonehenge WHS

2.1.2 The exact boundaries in both parts of the WHS follow modern or topographical features with little significance in archaeological or visual terms. They were drawn up prior to nomination in 1986 without the benefit of a detailed study which would be carried out under present day nomination requirements. The WHS boundary at Stonehenge is drawn to the north along the road known as The Packway, between Rollestone Camp and the A345 roundabout; to the east, largely along the west bank of the River Avon and along Countess Road; and to the south along field boundaries

Stonehenge and Avebury WHSWoodland Strategy

Location of Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

© H

isto

ric

Engl

and


past Rox Hill to the A360 road. The western boundary is formed by the A360 and B3086 roads.

2.1.3 The boundary of the WHS encompasses c 2,600 hectares of land containing a high density of both buried and visible ‘upstanding’ archaeological sites and monuments. In addition to Stonehenge itself, the boundary includes important ridge-top barrow groups (for example the Cursus Barrows, Normanton Down Barrows, New King and Old King Barrows, Lake Barrows and Winterbourne Stoke Barrows); Woodhenge and the henge enclosure of Durrington Walls; and the Stonehenge Avenue and Cursus earthworks. Much of the area surrounding the WHS is also of archaeological importance. A forthcoming review will consider whether a boundary extension would be appropriate to include directly related sites and monuments. The boundaries of the WHS also include the National Trust’s 827 hectare property, managed to protect a landscape rich with interrelated monuments.

See Map 13 – The Avebury WHS

2.1.4 The WHS boundary at Avebury relies less on roads and rivers than at Stonehenge. The original boundary appears to have been drawn up to reflect the routes of byways and field, parish and district boundaries and, to the west, the edge of a map sheet. To the north it is drawn along existing field boundaries and to the north-west it follows the previous district council boundary between Kennet and North Wiltshire. The western boundary was drawn around the base of Knoll Down in order to include the arc of land running from West Kennet Long Barrow to Windmill Hill. The eastern boundary followed field boundaries. The original southern boundary for some of its length followed the lines of the River Kennet, a byway and field boundaries.

2.1.5 In 2008 UNESCO approved a minor boundary extension enclosing an additional 304 hectares8 at Avebury. This rationalised the boundary in archaeological and management terms. Previously bisected Beckhampton Penning, Hemp Knoll and Fox Covert barrow complexes in the west and south were fully included. The major monument of East Kennet Long Barrow and all of the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures is now within the boundary as is the whole of the large Scheduled Monument that coincides approximately with the Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve (NNR) which was previously bisected by it.

2.1.6 As at Stonehenge, the Avebury boundary encompasses c 2,600 hectares of land containing a high density of both buried and visible ‘upstanding’ archaeological sites and monuments. In addition to the Avebury Henge and stone circles at its centre, the boundary includes important round barrow groups (for example the Overton Hill, Waden Hill and Folly Hill barrow cemeteries); Neolithic long barrows: West and East Kennet, Horslip, Beckhampton Road and South Street; the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues; Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure; the Sanctuary; Silbury Hill and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures. The boundaries of the WHS include the National Trust’s property which makes up around a third of the WHS, around 647 hectares, and embraces many of its major monuments including the Avebury Henge and Windmill Hill.

2.1.7 Much of the area surrounding both parts of the WHS is of archaeological importance. The area between Stonehenge and Avebury contains very significant monuments such as the Neolithic henge at Marden which is almost equidistant between the two parts of the WHS.

2.2 Description of the World Heritage Site

Brief description

The official UNESCO brief description of the World Heritage Site, agreed by the World Heritage Committee in July 2008, is:

The Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites World Heritage Site is internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments. Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world, while Avebury is the largest in the world. Together with interrelated monuments and their associated landscapes, they help us to understand Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and mortuary practices. They demonstrate around 2000 years of continuous use and monument building between c 3700 and 1600 BC. As such they represent a unique embodiment of our collective heritage.


17

society. The WHS contains much more than the stone monuments alone. Stonehenge and the Avebury Stone Circles lie at the heart of very dense archaeological landscapes. These landscapes contain monument complexes comprising significant concentrations of long barrows and barrow cemeteries mainly of early Bronze Age date. They also include henges, earthworks such as the Stonehenge Cursus monuments and the Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, and evidence of early settlements and field systems, as well as remains of later ages. The nature of the recorded archaeological evidence is varied and includes built, buried and surface remains occurring at different densities within the WHS. It is recognised that visibility of features does not always equate with importance. Some built monuments may be highly visible in the landscape, but other less well-preserved and/or buried sites may also be important for our understanding of the period.

2.2.3. Although the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS is not designated as a Cultural Landscape, it has been described as a cultural landscape for many years, as a means of recognising that individual monuments do not exist in isolation. According to the nomination document, the site comprises a number of named

Reconstruction drawing of the Stonehenge Landscape in c 1600 BC

Pete

r D

unn

© J0

5004

5 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

The cultural heritage of the World Heritage Site

Monuments and landscape of the World Heritage Site

See Maps 3 and 14 – Archaeology and land use

2.2.1 Stonehenge occupies a unique position in our national heritage. Its archaeological importance is unquestionable. Together with other late Neolithic monuments such as the Avenue and Durrington Walls, it is of huge significance for our understanding of the Neolithic period. Avebury, although less well known to the public in general, is of equal archaeological importance. The scale of its monuments easily matches Stonehenge. The outer stone circle at Avebury is the largest in the world and Silbury Hill is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe.

2.2.2 The landscape that we see today in both parts of the WHS is the culmination of millennia of human activity, but the remains observed in these landscapes point to the vast scale of monumental construction and to the extensive exchange network that existed during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, indicating a highly developed


and associated monuments which together form a ‘landscape without parallel’.9 Since December 1992 the World Heritage Committee has recognised World Heritage Cultural Landscapes as a category of cultural site. This decision was made to help deal with the conceptual and practical difficulties with the assessment of rural sites which contain both cultural and natural values. The 2004 UNESCO publication World Heritage Cultural Landscapes10 does include this site as one of 70 nominated to the World Heritage List prior to 1992 which could be considered as a cultural landscape if it were to be re-nominated.

2.2.4 There are more than 700 known archaeological features (including find spots) recorded within the Stonehenge part of the WHS, and 175 Scheduled Monuments (many of them covering extensive areas and multiple sites) which are afforded statutory protection because of their national importance. These 175 Scheduled Monuments include approximately 415 individual archaeological items or features. At Avebury the number of features has increased since the boundary extension in 2008. There are now around 418 known archaeological sites (exclusive of find scatters). There are 74 Scheduled Monuments which include 200 individual sites or features. Given the density of known archaeology, there is considered to be great potential for new discoveries within the WHS, and the protection of the archaeology and the landscape is given a high priority in development control decisions within the WHS.

2.2.5 An appreciation of the key phases in the development of

the landscape, particularly in prehistory, is important for a full understanding of the reasons for the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS, the current landscape and its future management needs. A full archaeological description can be found in Appendix K.

Influence of Stonehenge and Avebury

and their landscapes

2.2.6 Stonehenge in its landscape setting has long been considered to be impressive and important. Both Stonehenge and Avebury figure strongly in art, literature and the public consciousness and have elicited a range of interpretations and responses from antiquarians, artists and writers, and the media.

2.2.7 Literature and art provide an indication of how Stonehenge and Avebury have been perceived through time. Henry of Huntingdon (c 1088–c 1158) in his Historia Anglorum – ‘Stanenges … stones of wonderful size’ – and Geoffrey of Monmouth (c 1100–c 1155) both questioned how the monument was constructed. Visitors appeared in larger numbers from the 17th century, after the survey by the architect Inigo Jones in or shortly after 1620. Antiquarians such as John Aubrey (1626–97), William Stukeley (1687–1765) and Sir Richard Colt-Hoare (1758–1838) continued the recognition of, and interest in, Stonehenge as a significant monument. Avebury too was the focus of much interest and speculation. John Aubrey ‘found’ the stone circle within the village in 1649 while hunting on the

Abury, a Temple of the British Druids (1743) William Stukeley


19

Marlborough Downs and recorded many details in his Monumenta Britannica. In 1663 he was commanded by Charles II to survey and describe the monument, which in Aubrey’s words ‘doth as much exceed in greatness the so renowned Stonehenge, as a cathedral doth a parish church’. In 1743 Stukeley published Abury, a Temple of the British Druids setting out his theories on the origin of the monument in a pre-Roman proto-Christian cult.

2.2.8 Antiquarians also made detailed studies of aspects of the landscape, mapping out monuments such as the Cursus and the Avenue at Stonehenge and the complex of monuments at Avebury. Stukeley’s innovative ‘birds eye’ views of the latter depicted the Avebury Henge and its avenues forming the shape of the ‘divine serpent’, which he associated with its origins. He recorded many details since lost to us, such as the stones at the Sanctuary. Images of those times reflect the developing architectural contribution made by Stonehenge. Inigo Jones’ plans of the monument, for example, were a major influence on John Wood, who designed part of another WHS – the Circus in Bath – and talks given by Sir John Soane in the early 19th century led to a further revival of interest. By

the 1830s it had become a favourite site for Romantic artists. Painters, including Turner, Constable and James Barry, were inspired by the ‘romantic magnificence’ of the monument in its landscape. Others were drawn by the stones themselves, such as the artist Henry Moore in the 20th century and the modernist painter Paul Nash who was inspired by both the Henge and West Kennet Avenue at Avebury.

2.2.9 A memorable scene from Thomas Hardy’s novel Tess of the d’Urbervilles (1891) occurs within Stonehenge and evokes the strangeness and drama of the landscape. Vita Sackville West’s novel Grey Wethers (1923), set in Avebury, draws on the layers of history and village life as well as the beauty of the downs. Examples of perceptions presented in more recent popular culture include the strangeness and threat of a village mingled with unknowable prehistory in the Children of the Stones produced in the mid-1970s and the mysterious and threatening Pandorica prison in the Under Henge that appeared in Dr Who (2010). Christopher Chippindale’s Stonehenge Complete (2012) provides an interesting overview of changing perceptions of Stonehenge.

Stonehenge, a watercolour by J M W Turner (1775–1851) painted between 1825 and 1828

© W

ith k

ind

perm

issi

on o

f Sal

isbu

ry M

useu

m


Summary of historic environment values

2.2.10 Although of particular natural beauty at Avebury within the North Wessex Downs AONB, the gentle and expansive rolling downland and small valleys characteristic of the WHS are similar to many other chalk landscapes in Southern England. However, the landscape of the WHS provides a remarkable amount of evidence of changing human activities and land use since the Palaeolithic period, although not all these archaeological remains are attributes of OUV. In particular, the unusually extensive survival of the densest and most varied complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in Britain is a visible part of the present day landscape. Many individual monuments are typical of their period while other types are extremely rare. Other less well-known, less visible or buried sites all contribute to our understanding of former people and the way in which they used the landscape. The potential for further research and knowledge to be gained from sites, including those yet to be discovered, is also considered to be great. As a whole, the combination of different types of site, the scale of monument construction and the concentration of both in a relatively small area is unparalleled. A more detailed description of archaeological remains within the boundary of the WHS is found at Appendix K.

The character of the WHS and its regional context

See Map 12 – Regional landscape characterisations

Regional landscape context

2.2.11 The regional Character Areas, defined on the National Character of England map and shown on Map 12, provide a useful context within which to consider the existing character of the WHS landscape. Stonehenge lies within Salisbury Plain at the heart of the extensive chalklands that give structure to the landscape of much of southern England. To the east, the North and South Downs extend through Surrey, Sussex and Kent to the channel coasts, enclosing the clays of the Low and High Weald. To the north and north-east, the Berkshire and Marlborough Downs and the Chilterns mark the northern edge of the Thames Basin Heaths, while to the south, the Dorset Downs and Cranborne Chase stretch to the coast below Dorchester. These great bands of chalk come together in Hampshire and Wiltshire, where a vast area of downland extends for some 80 kilometres. Avebury is situated on the western edge of the Marlborough Downs within the North Wessex Downs AONB.

West Kennet Long Barrow on smoothly rounded chalk ridgeline

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


21

River Kennet below Swallowhead Springs

© M

icha

el G

odda

rd

2.2.12 Though each of these areas of chalk has a distinctive regional character, they have a number of common features. These include the characteristic convex, smoothly rounded landforms, steep escarpments where the beds of chalk are exposed, dry valleys and larger river valleys which often provide a focus for modern settlement and communication routes. Historically, the high downland provided a dry and secure route for travellers, and many of the escarpments are crowned with ancient ridgeway tracks.

2.2.13 The landscape around the WHS exhibits many of the classic features associated with chalk. To the north of Stonehenge, many decades of military training activity have led to the survival of very extensive areas of unimproved downland where there is an absence of settlement. To the south, east and west lie chalk river valleys, characterised by a high density of historic villages and designed landscapes clustered along the sides of lush floodplains. At Avebury the WHS encompasses many of these latter characteristics related to the presence of the Winterbourne and Kennet Valley.

Landscape character classification of

the WHS and its environs

See Maps 9 and 20 – Landscape character

2.2.14 Landscape types have been identified within a broad study area around the WHS by the Stonehenge WHS Landscape and Planning Study11 and at Avebury in the Landscape Assessment.12 These are tracts of countryside with a unity of character due to broadly similar combinations of geology, landform and land cover, and a consistent and distinct pattern of constituent elements. Differences in landscape character reflect both physical and historical influences including drainage, land use and field patterns.

2.2.15 Within the study area at Stonehenge, nine landscape types have been identified13 reflecting two main principal physiographic variations in the structure of the landscape. Their broad distribution is shown on Map 9, which presents the landscape types in relation to the occurrence of recorded archaeology within the WHS and the surrounding area. They include:

(A) Downland Landscapes (A1) Dry River Valleys (A2) Upper Stonehenge Dry Valley (A3) Agricultural Downland (A4) Downland Ridgelines (A5) Unimproved Downland/Military Training Areas (B) Avon Valley Landscapes (B1) River Valley: Water Meadows and Floodplain (B2) River Valley: Slopes

2.2.16 Within the study area at Avebury which included the WHS and its hinterland, nine landscape types have been identified.14 Their broad distribution is shown on Map 20, which presents the landscape types in relation to the occurrence of recorded archaeology within the WHS and the surrounding area. Short descriptions of these areas can be found in the Avebury WHS Management Plan (1998) Appendix A. They include:

(A) Greensand Scarp and Lowlands (B) Western Undulating Plateau (C) The Winterbourne and Kennet Valley (D) The Ridgeway and Ridgeway Slopes (E) Marlborough, Fyfield and Overton Down (F) Cherhill and Calstone Downs (G) Bishops Canning Valley (H) Southern Ridges and Valleys (I) Vale of Pewsey

2.2.17 The landscape types are relatively coherent units in terms of the management issues that they raise. Landscape management guidelines for each type were


identified in the same study. These aim to conserve and enhance the area’s landscape character, by maintaining the differences in land cover and vegetation which distinguish, for example, the river valley water meadows and floodplain landscape from the open downland. This broad guidance has been incorporated into the objectives of the WHS Management Plan.

Key characteristics of the landscape

2.2.18 Typically, much of the WHS is an open landscape in which the sky dominates. The undulating landform, with large fields bounded by fences and long distant views of plantations, clumps of trees, roads and upstanding archaeological features are the most distinctive characteristics of the downland plateau landscapes within the WHS. The general absence of hedgerows and buildings is also a notable feature.

2.2.19 In contrast to the expansive downland plateau areas, the enclosed and small-scale character of the Avon Valley is a significant variation in the character of the WHS. Here, just to the east of Stonehenge, the River Avon meanders through cattle-grazed water meadows, bordered by thick woodland which extends up the valley sides in places. Small riverside settlements with distinctive historic buildings follow the valley floor, complemented by the designed landscapes of old parkland. The sense of tranquillity and remoteness is enhanced by the visual containment of the wooded valley slopes. At Avebury the contrast is provided by the Winterbourne and Kennet Valley where villages of mainly detached houses with a wide variety of materials and styles are found. Large manor houses and manor farms are also present. The fields are smaller and there are areas of permanent pasture and remnant valley bottom flood meadows. Hedges and hedgerow trees are intermittent in this area in which the major prehistoric monuments such as Avebury and Silbury are prominent features. Fyfield and Overton Downs are unique within the WHS for their enclosed dry valleys and remarkable sarsen fields, most notably the train of 10,000 naturally occurring sarsens at Clatford Bottom.

Landform

See Map 11 and 22 – Visual sensitivity

2.2.20 The topography of the WHS landscape is rolling with a series of ridges and dry valleys. At Stonehenge the ridges include King Barrow Ridge, which extends southwards to Springbottom, the Cursus/Stonehenge Down, the Normanton Down ridgelines, the Winterbourne Stoke and Lesser Cursus ridgelines. At

Avebury ridges and high points both within and outside the WHS are visually important providing long views to and from the monuments. They include Overton Hill and the Ridgeway, Avebury and Knoll Downs, Waden Hill, Windmill Hill, West Kennet and East Kennet Long Barrow ridgelines as well as Cherhill Down and the Wansdyke, the scarp at Monkton Down and parts of Winterbourne Monkton in the setting of the WHS. Windmill Hill in particular provides panoramic views across the whole WHS. Waden Hill provides views to the Henge and surrounding area whilst also subdividing the WHS into small enclosed visual compartments.

2.2.21 Prominent dry valleys, such as the one running northwards from Springbottom to Larkhill Plantation at Stonehenge are also distinctive features. Long, sinuous dry valleys are found at Fyfield Down in the Avebury part of the WHS. To the west of Stonehenge, the watershed between the Avon and the Till catchments marks the boundary of the Site. The valley of the River Avon along the eastern boundary at Stonehenge forms a marked transition to the downland east of the WHS. This same marked transition from downland is found in the Winterbourne and Kennet Valley at Avebury.

Modern features of the landscape

2.2.22 The current character of the WHS landscape is greatly influenced by relatively recent agricultural and forestry land-use practice. At Stonehenge much of the WHS landscape was divided into the current pattern of land holdings in the 20th century, and within these modern land parcels are many individual monuments and much surviving archaeology. Parts of today’s landscape are characterised by the intensive military use of the WHS during the early 20th century, documented in a study by Wessex Archaeology in 1998.15 At Avebury the character of the WHS exemplifies the evolution of the landscape over time through the presence of its historic villages and rich built

Barn at Avebury incorporating local sarsen stone

© B

rian

Edw

ards


23

heritage. Whether we refer to these as modern features depends on our timescale. They could however definitely be considered so in relation to the prehistoric landscape. Modern monuments such as the Lansdowne Monument at Cherhill, erected in 1845 and still a clearly visible landmark in the setting of the WHS, were designed to be prominent additions to the landscape. The WHS landscape has been subject to continuous change, with varying intensities or speed of change over different periods, and it will continue to change into the future. This will need to be carefully managed to protect the attributes of OUV.

2.2.23 Today several major intrusive elements are obvious within the rich archaeological landscape. Roads and traffic in particular dominate in a number of areas and are visibly and aurally intrusive. At Stonehenge, although considerable progress has been made by the closure of the A344, the A303 and the A360 run straight across the landscape. The traffic impacts negatively on the setting of multiple attributes of OUV including Stonehenge, the round barrow cemeteries on King Barrow Ridge and Winterbourne Stoke Barrows. In addition the A303 and the A345 sever the Stonehenge Avenue and the henge at Durrington Walls respectively in two. At Avebury the A361/4361 and A4 are major roads; the former bisects the henge monument. The A4 has a similar impact on the setting of Silbury Hill and the Sanctuary. It bisects the Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery and divides it from the Sanctuary and the two barrows to the south of the A4. The B4003 runs along and across the West Kennet Avenue detracting from its prominence as a key element leading out from the Henge.

2.2.24 To the north of Stonehenge, the large modern buildings of Larkhill Garrison dominate the rising slopes on the edge of Salisbury Plain while to the east, the buildings at Boscombe Down are prominent on the skyline. The recently constructed vast distribution centre at Solstice Park has a significant impact on views from many locations in the WHS including Stonehenge itself and Durrington Walls. At Avebury new large-scale grain stores are in some places becoming more prominent than the previous vernacular agricultural buildings. Developments to the north of the Henge along the A4361 detract from the dominance of the Henge in the landscape. In an open landscape with prominent ridgelines, fence lines, silos, masts and pylon lines are also potentially intrusive features, particularly where they appear on ridgelines, although these are largely screened by trees for much of the year.

Trees and woodlands in the landscape

2.2.25 The WHS Woodland Strategy (2015) provides comprehensive data on the trees, woodland and scrub at both Stonehenge and Avebury. The woodlands within

the Stonehenge part of the WHS are typically of two main types. Firstly, ridgeline clumps of mixed deciduous trees, including a high proportion of beech, were planted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Examples can be seen on King Barrow Ridge and Winterbourne Stoke Clump at Stonehenge and those planted on the Ridgeway barrows at Overton Hill, Avebury. Many of these developed originally from simpler coppices of hazel and ash. Many of the ridgeline clumps have suffered greatly from wind throw, particularly the New King Barrow Plantation and Winterbourne Stoke Clump in 1987 and 1990. Secondly, there are plantations of pine, mainly Scots and Corsican, most of which were planted at the end of the Second World War, such as the west and east Larkhill Plantations. The largest block of woodland at Stonehenge is Fargo Plantation which is a complex area of deciduous and coniferous species. This woodland, because of its size and location, is also a visually dominant feature and can be seen from most of the area as far east as the King Barrow Ridge although it has been considerably thinned as part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvement Project. Several hundred trees were lost both in the Fargo Plantation and on MoD land following storms in the winter of 2013/14.

2.2.26 There are fewer woods in the Avebury part of the WHS. Many of them are plantations of relatively recent origin. Plantations of the older type include the beech plantation at Delling Copse on Fyfield Down, Beckhampton Plantation (ash, sycamore and beech) and Windmill Hill Plantation (ash/sycamore). At Avebury, tree planting related to villages and designed landscapes now forms significant features in the landscape. The large chestnut avenue running north from the Henge along the A4361 was removed due to disease in 2009. Lime saplings have since been planted to replace them. There is a formal planting of limes within the parkland north of Avebury Manor: a feature of landscape design. The trees on the banks of the Henge have now become a key feature particularly in the south-east quadrant where they bring their own conservation challenges. Wroughton Copse may date back to the 14th century and is an important feature on the relatively sparsely wooded Overton Down. Small copses planted as cover for shooting are beginning to appear in the landscape. One such area lies to the south-west of West Kennet Long Barrow.

Agricultural character

2.2.27 Changes in agricultural techniques and, in particular, the drive to increase agricultural production during the 20th century, have meant that large parts of the original downland have been ploughed up to allow more intensive agricultural production. As a result, much of the WHS, with the exception of the Salisbury Plain Training Area


at Stonehenge, and Fyfield Down NNR and Silbury Hill at Avebury, is arable in character, with extensive fields occurring across a large proportion of the WHS. At Stonehenge the areas north of the A303 around Stonehenge itself and the Cursus Barrows and south of Durrington Walls have been converted from arable to pasture since the 1920s and large parts of the WHS south of the A303 have more recently been similarly converted with the aid of Defra grants. Grassland reversion has also taken place in the Avebury half of the WHS with marked gains throughout the landscape. These areas tend to be more dispersed than at Stonehenge and focus on areas of archaeological sensitivity. Although some large areas have been reverted on Waden Hill and in the Longstones Field for example, much remains arable in character. Across the WHS some small isolated fragments of chalk grassland have survived on the steeper slopes and on some protected archaeological sites.

2.3 Significance of the World Heritage Site: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

The Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS

2.3.1 The UK Government is accountable according to the World Heritage Convention for the protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of its sites on the World Heritage List in order to sustain their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). According to the UNESCO Operational Guidelines, OUV is ‘cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity’. UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines set out ten criteria for assessing whether or not a place has OUV.16

2.3.2 Today, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee adopts a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for each site when it is inscribed. These Statements:

Contain a summary of the Committee’s determination that the property has OUV

Identify the criteria under which the property was inscribed

Assess the conditions of integrity and authenticity and

Assess the requirements for protection and management in force.

The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value set out below at 2.3.7, is the basis for the future protection and management of the property.17

2.3.3 Past inscriptions, including that of Stonehenge and Avebury, did not include such statements. In many cases, the Committee’s definition of why a site has OUV has to be deduced from the documentation (particularly the Advisory Body evaluation) submitted to the Committee at the time of inscription plus any comments made in their decision. Therefore, one of the Committee’s follow-up actions to the Periodic Report on Europe, completed in 2005, was to ask each Government to prepare a short Statement of

WO

RLD

HERITAGE PATRIMOIN

E M

ON

DIA

L

PATR

IMONIO MUNDIAL


United Nationsducational cienti c and


Beech clumps on Bronze Age barrows locally known as ‘hedgehogs’ beside the Ridgeway, Avebury

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/Nic

ola

Snas

hall


25

Significance for each site inscribed before 1998. These Statements had to be based on the original Committee decision and documentation and did not allow for any changes from the Committee’s views at the time of inscription. They did not cover integrity and authenticity since these were not formally assessed in the early decades of the Convention and there was therefore no evidence in Committee documentation of these aspects of the WHS. These shortened statements were known as Statements of Significance.

Statement of Significance

2.3.4 The World Heritage Committee agreed a Statement of Significance for the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site at its meeting in July 2008 (Appendix G).18 This Statement was proposed by the UK Government following its agreement by the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Steering Committees. The Statement of Significance now forms the first part of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value set out below.

2.3.5 As well as endorsing the Statement of Significance, the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Steering Committees also agreed the following text, in January 2008, which accompanied the Statement of Significance. The other values of the WHS are further discussed below at 2.4–2.8.

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

2.3.6 In 2007 the World Heritage Committee recognised the ‘pivotal importance of Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (Statements of OUV) in all World Heritage processes’ and urged States Parties to prepare retrospective Statements of OUV for all WHSs inscribed prior to 2007.20 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Coordinators and the Steering Committees began work to expand the Statement of Significance into a Statement of OUV by preparing Statements of Integrity, Authenticity and Protection and Management Requirements. These were prepared in the spirit of the original nomination documents and took account of any relevant developments and changes in the management context since 1986.

2.3.7 Following agreement by both Steering Committees and a period of public consultation the Statement of OUV was submitted to the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) in 2010. The draft Statement of OUV was submitted to UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre in Paris in February 2011 and it was adopted at the 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee in Phnom Penh, Cambodia at the end of June 2013.21

The Statement of OUV should now form the focus of all protection and management decisions. The term ‘World Heritage property’ which appears in the Statement below is an alternative term for World Heritage Site.

In addition to the Outstanding Universal Value, which gives the Site its international significance, there are other national and local values which have to be taken into account in management decisions.

These are set out in the two Management Plans for Stonehenge and Avebury. They include: the archaeological and historical significance of other periods from the Mesolithic onwards, continually augmented by new discoveries, social value and local needs, educational resource, ecological value, tourism, agriculture and other economic activities. The movable artefacts from the World Heritage Site are important in developing our understanding of this prehistoric culture. Many of them are held at the nearby Wiltshire Heritage Museum in Devizes, the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury19 and the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury itself. At Avebury, it is important to take into consideration the needs of the local community living within and adjacent to the Henge, which creates particular issues.

Other values


Criterion (i): The monuments of the Stonehenge,

Avebury, and Associated Sites World Heritage Sites

property demonstrate outstanding creative and

technological achievements in prehistoric times.

Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world. It is unrivalled in its design and unique engineering, featuring huge horizontal stone lintels capping the outer circle and the trilithons, locked together by carefully shaped joints. It is distinguished by the unique use of two different kinds of stones (Bluestones and Sarsens), their size (the largest weighing over 40t), and the distance they were transported (up to 240km).The sheer scale of some of the surrounding monuments is also remarkable: the Stonehenge Cursus and the Avenue are both about 3km long, while Durrington Walls is the largest known henge in Britain, around 500m in diameter, demonstrating the ability of prehistoric peoples to conceive, design, and construct features of great size and complexity.

Avebury prehistoric stone circle is the largest in the world. The encircling henge consists of a huge bank and ditch 1.3km in circumference, within which 180 local, unshaped standing stones formed the large outer


The World Heritage property comprises two areas of chalkland in Southern Britain within which complexes of Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments and associated sites were built. Each area contains a focal stone circle and henge and many other major monuments. At Stonehenge these include the Avenue, the Cursuses, Durrington Walls, Woodhenge, and the densest concentration of burial mounds in Britain. At Avebury, they include Windmill Hill, the West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Silbury Hill, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues, the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures, and important barrows.

Stonehenge is one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design, the shaping of the stones, uniquely using both Wiltshire Sarsen sandstone and Pembroke Bluestone, and the precision with which it was built.

At Avebury, the massive Henge, containing the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world, and Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric mound in Europe, demonstrate the outstanding engineering skills which were used to create masterpieces of earthen and megalithic architecture.

There is an exceptional survival of prehistoric monuments and sites within the World Heritage property including settlements, burial grounds, and large constructions of earth and stone. Today, together with their settings, they form landscapes without parallel. These complexes would have been of major significance to those who created them, as is apparent by the huge investment of time and effort they represent. They provide an insight into the mortuary and ceremonial practices of the period, and are evidence of prehistoric technology, architecture, and astronomy. The careful siting of monuments in relation to the landscape helps us to further understand the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

The World Heritage property is of Outstanding Universal Value for the following qualities:

Unesco criteria for inscription on The World Heritage List

and two smaller inner circles. Leading from two of its four entrances, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues of parallel standing stones still connect it with other monuments in the landscape. Another outstanding monument, Silbury Hill, is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. Built around 2400 BC, it stands 39.5m high and comprises half a million tonnes of chalk. The purpose of this imposing, skilfully engineered monument remains obscure.

Criterion (ii): The World Heritage Property provides

an outstanding illustration of the evolution of

monument construction and of the continual use and

shaping of the landscape over more than 2000 years,

from the early Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The

monuments and landscape have had an unwavering

influence on architects, artists, historians, and

archaeologists, and still retain huge potential for

future research.

The megalithic and earthen monuments of the World Heritage Property demonstrate the shaping of the landscape through monument building for around 2000 years from c 3700 BC, reflecting the importance and wide influence of both areas.


27

Since the 12th century when Stonehenge was considered one of the wonders of the world by the chroniclers Henry of Huntington and Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Stonehenge and Avebury sites have excited curiosity and been the subject of study and speculation. Since early investigations by John Aubrey, Inigo Jones, and William Stukeley, they have had an unwavering influence on architects, archaeologists, artists, and historians. The two parts of the World Heritage Property provide an excellent opportunity for further research.

Today, the property has spiritual associations for some.

Criterion (iii): The complexes of monuments at

Stonehenge and Avebury provide an exceptional

insight into the funerary and ceremonial practices

in Britain in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Together

with their settings and associated sites, they form

landscapes without parallel.

The design, position, and inter-relationship of the monuments and sites are evidence of a wealthy and highly organised prehistoric society able to impose its concepts on the environment. An outstanding example is the alignment of the Stonehenge Avenue (probably a processional route) and Stonehenge stone circle on the axis of the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset, indicating their ceremonial and astronomical character. At Avebury the length and size of some of the features such as the West Kennet Avenue, which connects the Henge to the Sanctuary over 2km away, are further evidence of this.

A profound insight into the changing mortuary culture of the periods is provided by the use of Stonehenge as a cremation cemetery, by the West Kennet Long Barrow, the largest known Neolithic stone-chambered collective tomb in southern England, and by the hundreds of other burial sites illustrating evolving funerary rites.

Integrity

The boundaries of the property capture the attributes that together convey Outstanding Universal Value at Stonehenge and Avebury. They contain the major Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments that exemplify the creative genius and technological skills for which the property is inscribed. The Avebury and Stonehenge landscapes are extensive, both being around 25 square kilometres, and capture the relationship between the monuments as well as their landscape setting.

At Avebury the boundary was extended in 2008 to include East Kennet Long Barrow and Fyfield Down with its extensive Bronze Age field system and naturally occurring Sarsen Stones. At Stonehenge the boundary will be reviewed to consider the possible inclusion of related, significant monuments nearby such as Robin Hood’s Ball, a Neolithic causewayed enclosure.

The setting of some key monuments extends beyond the boundary. Provision of buffer zones or planning guidance based on a comprehensive Setting Study should be considered to protect the setting of both individual monuments and the overall setting of the property.

The survival of the Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments at both Stonehenge and Avebury is exceptional and

Unesco criteria for inscription on The World Heritage List cont.

remarkable given their age – they were built and used between around 3700 and 1600 BC. Stone and earth monuments retain their original design and materials. The timber structures have disappeared but postholes indicate their location. Monuments have been regularly maintained and repaired as necessary.

The presence of busy main roads going through the World Heritage property impacts adversely on its integrity. The roads sever the relationship between Stonehenge and its surrounding monuments, notably the A344 which separates the Stone Circle from the Avenue. At Avebury, roads cut through some key monuments including the Henge and the West Kennet Avenue. The A4 separates the Sanctuary from its barrow group at Overton Hill.

Roads and vehicles also cause damage to the fabric of some monuments while traffic noise and visual intrusion have a negative impact on their settings. The incremental impact of highway-related clutter needs to be carefully managed.

Development pressures are present and require careful management. Impacts from existing intrusive development should be mitigated where possible.


Authenticity

Interventions have been limited mainly to excavations and the re-erection of some fallen or buried stones to their known positions in the early and mid-twentieth century in order to improve understanding. Ploughing, burrowing animals and early excavation have resulted in some losses but what remains is remarkable in its completeness and concentration. The materials and substance of the archaeology supported by the archaeological archives continue to provide an authentic testimony to prehistoric technological and creative achievement.

This survival and the huge potential of buried archaeology make the property an extremely important resource for archaeological research, which continues to uncover new evidence and expand our understanding of prehistory. Present day research has enormously improved our understanding of the property.

The known principal monuments largely remain in situ and many are still dominant features in the rural

landscape. Their form and design are well-preserved and visitors are easily able to appreciate their location, setting and interrelationships which in combination represent landscapes without parallel.

At Stonehenge several monuments have retained their alignment on the Solstice sunrise and sunset, including the Stone Circle, the Avenue, Woodhenge, and the Durrington Walls Southern Circle and its Avenue.

Although the original ceremonial use of the monuments is not known, they retain spiritual significance for some people, and many still gather at both stone circles to celebrate the Solstice and other observations. Stonehenge is known and valued by many more as the most famous prehistoric monument in the world.

There is a need to strengthen understanding of the overall relationship between remains, both buried and standing, at Stonehenge and at Avebury.

The UK Government protects World Heritage properties in England in two ways: firstly, individual buildings, monuments and landscapes are designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, and secondly through the UK Spatial Planning system under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The individual sites within the property are protected through the Government’s designation of individual buildings, monuments, gardens and landscapes.

Government guidance on protecting the Historic Environment and World Heritage is set out in National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 07/09. Policies to protect, promote, conserve and enhance World Heritage properties, their settings and buffer zones are also found in statutory planning documents. The protection of the property and its setting from inappropriate development could be further strengthened through the adoption of a specific Supplementary Planning Document.

At a local level, the property is protected by the legal designation of all its principal monuments. There is a specific policy in the Local Development Framework to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property from inappropriate development, along with adequate

references in relevant strategies and plans at all levels. The Wiltshire Core Strategy includes a specific World Heritage Property policy. This policy states that additional planning guidance will be produced to ensure its effective implementation and thereby the protection of the World Heritage property from inappropriate development. The policy also recognises the need to produce a setting study to enable this. Once the review of the Stonehenge boundary is completed, work on the setting study shall begin. The Local Planning Authority is responsible for continued protection through policy development and its effective implementation in deciding planning applications with the management plans for Stonehenge and Avebury as a key material consideration. These plans also take into account the range of other values relevant to the site in addition to Outstanding Universal Value. Avebury lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a national statutory designation to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape.

About a third of the property at both Stonehenge and Avebury is owned and managed by conservation bodies: English Heritage, a non-departmental government body, and the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which are both charities.

Protection and Management Requirements


29

Agri-environment schemes, an example of partnership working between private landowners and Natural England (a non-departmental government body), are very important for protecting and enhancing the setting of prehistoric monuments through measures such as grass restoration and scrub control. Much of the property can be accessed through public rights of way as well as permissive paths and open access provided by some agri-environment schemes. Managed open access is provided at Solstice. There are a significant number of private households within the property and local residents therefore have an important role in its stewardship.

The property has effective management plans, coordinators and steering groups at both Stonehenge and Avebury. There is a need for an overall integrated management system for the property which will be addressed by the establishment of a coordinating Stonehenge and Avebury Partnership Panel whilst retaining the Stonehenge and Avebury steering groups to enable specific local issues to be addressed and to maintain the meaningful engagement of the community. A single property management plan will replace the two separate management plans.

An overall visitor management and interpretation strategy, together with a landscape strategy needs to be put in place to optimise access to and understanding of the property. This should include improved interpretation for visitors and the local community both on site and in local museums, holding collections excavated from the property as well as through publications and the web. These objectives are being addressed at Stonehenge through the development of a visitor centre and the Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy. The updated Management Plan will include a similar strategy for Avebury. Visitor management and sustainable tourism challenges and opportunities are addressed by specific objectives in both the Stonehenge and Avebury Management Plans.

An understanding of the overall relationship between buried and standing remains continues to be developed through research projects such as the ‘Between the Monuments’ project and extensive geophysical surveys. Research Frameworks have been published for the Site and are regularly reviewed. These encourage further relevant research. The Woodland Strategy, an example of a landscape level management project, once complete, can be built on to include other elements of landscape scale planning.

It is important to maintain and enhance the improvements to monuments achieved through grass restoration and to avoid erosion of earthen monuments and buried archaeology through visitor pressure and burrowing animals.

At the time of inscription the State Party agreed to remove the A344 road to reunite Stonehenge and its Avenue and improve the setting of the Stone Circle. Work to deliver the closure of the A344 will be complete in 2013.22 The project also includes a new Stonehenge visitor centre. This will provide world class visitor facilities including interpretation of the wider World Heritage property landscape and the removal of modern clutter from the setting of the Stone Circle. Although substantial progress is being made, the impact of roads and traffic remains a major challenge in both parts of the World Heritage property. The A303 continues to have a negative impact on the setting of Stonehenge, the integrity of the property and visitor access to some parts of the wider landscape. A long-term solution remains to be found. At Avebury, a World Heritage Site Traffic Strategy will be developed to establish guidance and identify a holistic set of actions to address the negative impacts that the dominance of roads, traffic and related clutter has on integrity, the condition and setting of monuments and the ease and confidence with which visitors and the local community are able to explore the wider property.

Criteria

These are the original definitions for Criteria i, ii and iii which were current and in use in 1985/6:

Criterion i – represent a unique artistic achievement, a masterpiece of creative genius.

Criterion ii – have exerted great influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, monumental arts or town planning and landscaping.

Criterion iii – bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a civilisation which has disappeared.


The Stonehenge Avenue (c 2,300 BC), a processional route partly aligned on the midsummer sunrise – mid winter sunset solstitial axis. Image prior to stopping up of A344

The Lesser Cursus

The Normanton Down Barrow Cemetery, one of the finest in Britain, which includes the Bush Barrow with its famous grave goods now on display at the Wiltshire Museum. This area is now under grass

Woodhenge (c 2,300 BC), a timber circle set within a small earthwork henge, also aligned on the solstice axis at Stonehenge © K040326 Historic England

Durrington Walls (c 2,500) one of the largest henges in Europe some 500m in diameter © NMR_4482_16 Historic England

The Cursus (c 3,500 BC) a huge earthwork enclosure, 2.7km long© N000001 Crown Copyright Historic England

© N

MR

1504

_26

Cro

wn

Cop

yrig

ht H

isto

ric

Engl

and

© D

SC00

818

Lucy

Eve

rshe

d©

N93

0001

His

tori

c En

glan

d

© n

mr_

1866

3_19

His

tori

c En

glan

d©

nm

r219

59_1

9 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

The Winterbourne Stoke Barrow Cemetery, with later round barrows aligned on its earlier long barrow

The King Barrows, a ridge top Bronze Age barrow cemetery overlooking Stonehenge


31

The West Kennet Avenue (c 2,600–1,800 BC), appears to connect the Henge to the Sanctuary over 2km away to the south-east

The Longstones known locally as ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ are the last standing stones of the Longstones Cove (left) and the Beckhampton Avenue (right) (2,600–1,800 BC) © Rachel Foster

Silbury Hill (c 2,425-2,300 BC) is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. This skilfully engineered monument stands at 39.5m high and comprises half a million tonnes of chalk

The Sanctuary (2,500–2,000 BC) is a late Neolithic monument of concentric stone and timber circles today set out with concrete markers. It is connected to Avebury by the West Kennet Avenue

The Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery is a good example of the many round barrows built between 2,200–1,500 BC. It is situated on a prominent ridgeline and in relationship to the Sanctuary © sleepy myf

The Avebury Henge and Stone Circles (c 2,600–1,800 BC), the huge bank and ditch 1.3km in circumference encircles the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world © K040333 Historic England

The West Kennet Long Barrow constructed around 3,650 BC, an early Neolithic long barrow just over 100m long with 5 sarsen burial chambers at the eastern end © K040320 Historic England

© K

0208

07 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

© N

0701

24 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

© K

0403

40 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


The Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value

for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

2.3.8 The Statement of OUV above sets out a summary of the World Heritage Committee’s reasons why the Site has OUV. From this Statement, a number of attributes expressing the OUV have been identified. It is helpful to set these out in more detail to assist in the management of the Site. Attributes of OUV must now be defined to assist in the protection of all WHSs. It should be remembered however that the attributes are not themselves individually of OUV but that together they express the OUV of the Site.

2.3.9 The attributes set out below were originally prepared for the Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 but they apply across both parts of the WHS. They are derived from the single Statement of OUV and therefore ultimately from the original nomination documentation and the ICOMOS evaluation dating to 1985/6. The Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG) discussed the attributes in September 2010 and provided examples of components for the relevant attributes in Avebury.

2.3.10 It should be noted that the components of each attribute listed below are only examples and by no means represents an exhaustive list. In addition, the very high potential for future discoveries in the WHS means that any list of components could not be considered final. Further components will emerge as our understanding advances and deepens through research and the development of management tools such as the WHS Setting Study and Landscape Strategy.

1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument.

2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites.

3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape.

4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy.

The Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each other.

6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel.

7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.

Description of the Attributes of Outstanding

Universal Value

2.3.11 Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic

monument is an attribute of OUV. This monument is both an important and enduring symbol of man’s prehistoric past, and an internationally recognised symbol of Britain. It is difficult to overstate its importance as one of the best-known and most inspirational monuments in the world.

2.3.12 In the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS, the

physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze

Age ceremonial and funerary monuments

and associated sites are an attribute of OUV. In particular, it is considered that Stonehenge, the most architecturally sophisticated stone circle in the world, is a masterpiece of human creative genius. This monument, a focal point within the WHS, survives well and is unrivalled in its design and unique engineering.

President Obama on visit to Stonehenge following NATO Wales Summit 2014

© B

BC


33

2.3.13 In a similar way, the physical remains of some other monuments at Stonehenge are also considered to be masterpieces of human creative genius. These include the henge at Durrington Walls, the largest in Britain, which demonstrates the masterly ability of prehistoric peoples to organise and construct massive structures. Other such massive monuments include the Stonehenge Cursus and the Stonehenge Avenue. All of these sites are relatively well-preserved and have upstanding remains.

2.3.14 At Avebury the masterpieces of human creative genius include the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world. The encircling Henge consists of a huge bank and ditch 1.3km in circumference, within which 180 local, unshaped sarsen standing stones formed the large outer and two smaller inner circles. At Avebury the additional monuments that represent human creative genius are well preserved and have particularly impressive upstanding remains. Silbury Hill is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. Built around 2400 BC, it stands 39.5m high and comprises around half a million tonnes of chalk. The purpose of this imposing, skilfully engineered monument remains obscure. Other massive monuments include West Kennet Avenue, West Kennet and East Kennet Long Barrows and Windmill Hill.

2.3.15 The physical remains of other Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments are also considered to be attributes of OUV, and bear an exceptional testimony to a now-disappeared civilization. As well as the sites described in paragraphs 2.3.12 to 2.3.14 above, they include, at Stonehenge: Woodhenge, the Lesser Cursus and the densest concentration of Bronze Age burial mounds in Britain. Examples at Avebury include the Sanctuary, West Kennet Palisade Enclosures and Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery as well as other numerous well-preserved Bronze Age round barrows. They provide an insight into the mortuary and ceremonial practices of the period. Some of these sites and monuments have upstanding, visible remains. Others, such as the Lesser Cursus at Stonehenge and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures at Avebury, are now ploughed flat and survive only below ground; however, they retain some of their integrity through the survival of buried archaeological remains.

2.3.16 The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary

and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation

to the landscape including rivers and water is also an attribute of OUV. For example, it is now known that the monuments of Durrington Walls and Stonehenge were linked via their Avenues to the River Avon and

possibly thence to each other. At Avebury, Silbury Hill appears to have been intentionally sited at the head of the River Kennet. The Henge is also likely to have been intentionally positioned in relation to the river. Some barrow cemeteries were clearly built on prominent ridge-lines for their visual impact and in line with earlier burials. At Avebury these include the Ridgeway and Overton Hill groups. The latter appears also to relate to this river system. Similarly, Windmill Hill is sited on high ground and dominates views towards the north-west and wide views down to the Avebury complex. Whatever its original function, the Stonehenge Cursus seems to have been laid out in such a way as to link outward views over the Till and Avon valleys.

2.3.17 The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary


to the skies and astronomy is an attribute of OUV. A number of sites within the WHS are aligned on the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset axes, for example, Stonehenge, Woodhenge and parts of the Stonehenge Avenue. At Stonehenge, this factor appears to be have been an extremely important one from the earliest stages of the monument and throughout its subsequent development. The midwinter sunrise–midsummer sunset solstitial axis may also be of importance. In addition, the solstitial sightline extending south-eastwards from the southern circle at Durrington Walls is of importance as well as the northwest-southeast axis of the station-stone rectangle at Stonehenge, which remains the most plausible and striking manifestation of a possible alignment upon the moon when close to its extreme most southerly rising or most northerly setting points. There is currently no conclusive evidence of intentional solar or lunar alignment at any of the Avebury monuments, although a number of untested theories exist.

2.3.18 The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary


to each other is an attribute of OUV. For example, from Stonehenge itself, a number of important barrow groups are visible, such as those on King Barrow Ridge and Normanton Down. These barrow cemeteries were deliberately built on prominent ridgelines and are clearly visible from Stonehenge, and indeed from each other, as well as from other monuments such as the Cursus. Other barrow groups further away, such as the Lake Barrows, would also have been visible from Stonehenge. At Avebury the barrow groups are clearly inter-visible and related to earlier monuments. The prominent barrow groups along the Ridgeway are visible from the banks of the Henge while the group at Overton Hill is sited in relation to the Sanctuary.


Silbury Hill clearly visible from West Kennet Long Barrow

Stained glass Avebury window commissioned by Wiltshire Museum from John Piper

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l

© W

ith k

ind

perm

issi

on o

f Wilt

shire

Mus

eum

The Bronze Age barrows at Windmill Hill were placed within, and adjacent to, the earlier Neolithic causewayed enclosure.

2.3.19 It is not only barrow groups which are attributes of OUV in this way. There are clusters of other monuments which are not visible from Stonehenge, and never would have been. For example, the complex of sites in the Durrington Walls area includes its avenue leading from the river to the henge, its associated settlement, Woodhenge, and other Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows and sites along the ridge south of Woodhenge. A similar monument cluster occurs around the Stonehenge Cursus, which attracted later Bronze Age barrow groups.

2.3.20 At Avebury leading from two of the four entrances, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues of parallel standing stones connected the Avebury Henge with other monuments in the landscape. The West Kennet Avenue appears to connect the Henge to the Sanctuary over 2km away and the Beckhampton Avenue leads to the Longstones Cove and may even have extended to Fox Covert barrow group although evidence of this remains to be found. East and West Kennet Long Barrows would have been inter-visible and, built at the same period, could be considered closely related. The siting of the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures also seems to be related to the two long barrows. All these monuments were clearly sited in relation to each other and to the topography of the landscape.

2.3.21 The disposition, physical remains and settings of

the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial

and other monuments and sites of the period,

which together form a landscape without parallel

are an attribute of OUV. The design, position and interrelationship of the monuments are evidence of a highly organised prehistoric society able to impose its concepts on the environment. In some parts of the WHS, monuments or groups of monuments, such as

the King Barrow Ridge barrow cemetery, Stonehenge and the Normanton Down barrow cemetery, are so well-preserved and prominent that they and their physical and topographical interrelationships form immediately recognisable parts of an archaeological landscape. At Avebury this is particularly clear due to the easily discernible prominence in the landscape of West Kennet Long Barrow, Silbury Hill and the Avebury Henge and Stone Circles. In other parts of the WHS, however, the monuments and sites have become degraded or masked and their significance and physical relationships to one another and the landscape are no longer visible to the naked eye, but are nevertheless equally attributes of the Site’s OUV. There are also areas which appear to have been deliberately left empty of monuments. These are important for our constantly developing understanding of the landscape as whole.

2.3.22 The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze

Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their

landscape settings on architects, artists, historians,

archaeologists and others is an attribute of OUV. For example, Stonehenge has been depicted in a number of key views by artists of the British Romantic Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. Avebury has been a popular subject for artists over recent centuries. During the 20th century the English artist Paul Nash may have been the most famous to depict the Avebury Stone Circle. In recent years David Inshaw has been inspired to produce numerous images of Silbury Hill and its setting.

2.3.23 The WHS has been pivotal in the development of archaeology from early antiquarian investigations by Aubrey and Stukeley in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Both the Avebury and Stonehenge parts of the WHS have continued since then as an important focus for evolving archaeological practice and techniques.


35

Integrity and Authenticity

2.3.24 Statements of Integrity and Authenticity were agreed by the Stonehenge and Avebury Steering Committees as part of the process of producing the Statement of OUV discussed above. As defined in the Operational Guidelines, integrity is about the wholeness and intactness of the cultural heritage of the WHS while authenticity is about the truthfulness and credibility of the evidence for the Site’s OUV.

Integrity

2.3.25 Assessments of integrity are asked to examine the extent to which the WHS:

1. Includes all elements necessary to express its OUV 2. Is of adequate size to ensure the complete

representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance

3. Suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.

2.3.26 It could be argued that some elements which might help us to better understand the significance of the Stonehenge part of the WHS are outside its boundaries. It therefore follows that it may not be of adequate size to ensure complete representation of the features which convey its OUV. There are Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and communal monuments close to, but outside, the current boundary of the WHS, the remains of which, along with their physical and topographical interrelationships should be considered for inclusion in a boundary extension. The obvious candidates include the causewayed enclosure of Robin Hood’s Ball and the long barrows in this general area to the north and west of the WHS, one of which is only a few metres north of the current boundary.

2.3.27 These early Neolithic monuments were in fact named in the UK Government’s nomination documentation of 1985, and are part of the development of the Stonehenge area into a locality of exceptional significance in the later Neolithic and Bronze Ages. These monuments help us to understand the Site and without them, the WHS as a whole may lack some elements of integrity. It is noteworthy that Avebury’s causewayed enclosure – Windmill Hill – is within the boundary of the Avebury part of the WHS. The importance of the wider Stonehenge area has been demonstrated by the recent finds of rich early Bronze Age graves such as the ‘Amesbury Archer’ and the ‘Boscombe Bowmen’, both of which are outside the

current WHS boundary. Possible reassessment of the boundary is further discussed in Part Two, Section 7.5 (Planning and Policy). At Avebury a similar boundary review was undertaken which resulted in a proposed extension to include a number of monuments and sites outside the original boundary which were integral to its significance, including the East Kennet Long Barrow, the area of the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures previously outside the boundary and the whole of Fyfield Down NNR. This extension was endorsed by UNESCO in 2008.

2.3.28 The main adverse impact of development on integrity - the major roads A303, A344, A (4)361 and the A4 – were present in 1986. At that time, the Government gave assurances that they would give serious consideration to the closure of A344 where it crossed the Avenue at Stonehenge. This was achieved in 2013. These impacts have not largely changed in form though there is now a greater impact from increased traffic. More intensive use of the roads has an impact on the visual and tranquil enjoyment of the Site. The extent of other modern development within the WHS has increased since 1986. This includes pressure for large grain stores, replacement dwellings of an increased scale and the erection of extensions. There have been applications for renewable energy schemes and small housing developments within the setting of the WHS in recent years as well as plans for significant army rebasing affecting Stonehenge. There is now also a degree of increased light pollution. The conservation of the WHS has improved thanks to the reversion of substantial areas of the Site to grassland. As well as markedly changing the character of parts of the WHS, this has also stopped further damage by ploughing to buried archaeology.

2.3.29 An additional requirement is the need to protect the setting of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. To sustain the integrity and protect the setting of the WHS and relevant monuments a comprehensive Setting Study should be carried out and adequate guidance on development management put in place as recommended in Section 7.0 (Planning and Policy).

Authenticity

2.3.30 The Operational Guidelines suggest that authenticity should be assessed through the use of general attributes such as ‘form and design’ or ‘materials and substance’. For each of the Attributes 1–7, a brief assessment of the current position is made together with an estimate of how things have changed since the WHS was inscribed in 1986. Assessment of authenticity


has been greatly aided by the results of the centuries of research carried out in the WHS and in particular by the amount of work carried out since 1986.

Authenticity of the Attributes of Outstanding

Universal Value

1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic

monument.

Stonehenge itself is recognised throughout the world as a symbol of Britain as well as a masterpiece of great antiquity. This recognition has probably increased over the last two decades through the increase in access to digital media across the world, and the coverage of the recent visitor centre project.

2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze

Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and

associated sites.

The majority of known archaeological monuments and associated sites are protected by scheduling while many of the key sites are in the care of either English Heritage or the National Trust. Some attributes of OUV are currently unscheduled. Further scheduling of currently undesignated sites and new discoveries will be reviewed and undertaken as appropriate. Apart from Stonehenge, which underwent considerable works in the earlier part of the 20th century to stabilise and re-erect fallen stones, most sites other than an area of the Cursus and some round barrows remain unrestored. There have been excavations of many of the

burial mounds and some long barrows, many of which took place in the 19th century. Work was also carried out to Durrington Walls during the re-alignment of the A345 in the 1960s. The Avebury stone circles and the West Kennet Avenue were extensively restored by Alexander Keiller in the 1930s. This consisted mainly of re-erecting buried stones in their original positions or marking the original positions of stones since lost with easily distinguishable markers. Silbury Hill was extensively tunnelled in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries but underwent a conservation programme to stabilize the chalk mound in 2007.

3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary

and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the

landscape.

Relationships between the surviving Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments and the landscape remain at least as clear as they were in 1986. Archaeological work such as Stonehenge Landscape23 and the Stonehenge Riverside Project24 has increased our understanding of these relationships. Analysis of the extensive data arising from the recent Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes project will also add to our understanding. At Avebury this has been achieved by the Longstones25 and Between the Monuments projects. Extensive geophysical survey across the WHS including recent results from the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes project is also improving our understanding. Some visual and physical links are still impeded by the major roads in the landscape, by woodland and by modern development around Larkhill, as they were in 1986.

Sunset at Winter Solstice, Stonehenge

© M

8900

91 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


37

4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and

ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies

and astronomy.

There is much debate about the way in which the design and siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments relate to the skies and astronomy. It is generally agreed that the solstitial alignments of Stonehenge itself are a key element of its design. These have not been impaired by intrusive structures since the site was inscribed in 1986 (although the A303 continues to have a negative impact on the solstitial relationship of Stonehenge and the ‘sun barrow’ immediately north of Normanton Gorse). Some plantations also intrude on this and other solstitial alignments. At Avebury proof is still sought to show that astronomical alignments were a design feature of monuments rather than coincidental.

5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and

ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each

other.

Relationships between the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments remain as clear as they were in 1986 and can in most cases be easily appreciated. In some cases, visual and physical links are interrupted by woodland. A WHS Woodland Strategy has been produced to identify and address these areas.26 The major roads in the landscape intrude on some relationships, for example between Stonehenge itself and its Avenue and the Sanctuary and the Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery at Avebury. This is also the case for many other key Neolithic and Bronze Age sites and monuments.

6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the

Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other

monuments and sites of the period, which together form

a landscape without parallel.

The largely open nature of the landscape means that the disposition, physical remains and settings of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel, remain clear over much of the WHS. Relationships are less clear in the northern part of the Stonehenge landscape around the settlement of Larkhill where there is a considerable amount of modern development within the WHS. At Avebury the built environment intrudes on the setting of some monuments. This has increased on the approach to the Henge from the north. Elsewhere, in both parts of the WHS, the major roads intrude on appreciation of this landscape without parallel. Modern woodland obscures some aspects of the landscape though it also has an important screening role in some locations. The reversion of large areas of the WHS to grassland has strengthened the setting of a number of attributes of OUV since 1986.

7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze

Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their

landscape settings on architects, artists, historians,

archaeologists and others.

This attribute is expressed most clearly in artworks and literature depicting or inspired by the WHS, many centred on the stone settings at Stonehenge or Avebury. Silbury Hill has also been represented in artworks. Many such views remain largely unaffected by modern development apart from the major roads which can of course be an aspect of the artist’s or writer’s response to the WHS as seen in V S Naipaul’s The Enigma of Arrival (1987). This position has not altered since 1986 apart from the increased volume and noise of road traffic.

This attribute is also expressed by the fact that the WHS has been one of the key areas in the development of landscape archaeology since the work of Stukeley and others in the 18th century.

2.4 Historic environment and cultural heritage values

2.4.1 Sections 2.4 to 2.8 offer an overview and examples of the range of other values in addition to OUV that need to be taken into account in the management of the WHS. The Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack book Values and Voices27 provides an overview of these values written for the most part by those who are most closely identified with them. Section 2.4 describes the historic environment and cultural heritage values.

Rich palimpsest of history: Palaeolithic to present day

2.4.2 The WHS contains a large number of both archaeological and historic assets, many of which are important in their own right, although not attributes of its OUV. These come from both earlier and later than the period for which the WHS is listed (3700 to 1600 BC). Some are of national importance – such as, at Stonehenge, the Iron Age hillfort of Vespasian’s Camp, Amesbury Abbey Park and Garden and the Larkhill Aircraft Hangars – and are protected through scheduling, listing and inclusion on the register of parks and gardens. Others of national importance remain to be listed. Still others have no legal protection, but have local or regional importance. There are 49 Listed Buildings in the Stonehenge part of the WHS.

2.4.3 The very distinct character of the Avebury part of the WHS is in largely a result of the rich palimpsest of historic assets. The attributes of OUV are experienced


in juxtaposition with small villages, designed parklands, large manor houses and vernacular buildings which create a unique historic and cultural landscape. Archaeological evidence dates as far back as the Palaeolithic and there are nationally significant Romano-British, Saxon and medieval remains. It is however the presence of historic villages and their associated rich built heritage that contributes most obviously to the character of the Avebury part of the WHS. Within the WHS the main settlements are the Conservation Areas of Avebury village, Avebury Trusloe and West Kennett as well as the village of Beckhampton. Between them they contain 81 Listed Buildings. A number of these contain sarsen stones from the local area including elements of ‘recycled’ monuments from the period of stone breaking in the decades around 1700.

2.4.4 Some of the most significant elements of the historic built environment are found in Avebury village, which is Saxon in origin. The church has traces of its Saxon fabric. The height of the nave is a dominant feature in the setting of the Henge. On the north side of the village, the Grade I listed Avebury Manor which has 16th-century origins and the 17th-century Great Barn and its associated buildings lie within a parkland landscape dominated by lime avenues.

2.4.5 It is important when making decisions about the management of the WHS that all aspects of the historic environment are taken into account in an appropriate way.

Museum and archive collections

2.4.6 Although by definition movable objects cannot form part of a WHS, there are a number of nationally important museum and documentary archive collections which help illuminate our understanding of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS and its archaeological context. Many artefacts, historical documents and archives of research from the 18th century onwards are held at the Wiltshire Museum in Devizes, including the famous gold objects from Bush Barrow. Other finds and records are held in Salisbury Museum, the museum which receives archaeological material from the Stonehenge part of the WHS.

2.4.7 The Alexander Keiller Museum is situated within the landscape from which its collections are drawn and houses many thousands of artefacts discovered during fieldwork at key monuments in the Avebury half of the WHS. It holds internationally significant archaeological collections including those from the Windmill Hill excavations in the 1920s which were highly influential in

both the development of the discipline of archaeology in the 20th century and our understanding of the Neolithic. Today it receives archaeological material from across the Avebury part of the WHS. The museum also holds a unique collection of documents and archives relating to the archaeological excavations and restoration of the stone circles, including photographs and rare cine film from the 1920s. The Wiltshire Museum in Devizes also holds important collections from Avebury.

2.4.8 There are very important collections of data in the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (including the Historic Environment Record), the Historic England Archives (formerly known as the National Monuments Record) and the National Archives. These unique collections are vital for research and education, and it is essential that they continue to be well maintained and curated. A number of other institutions hold important antiquarian archives including writings, drawings and maps by John Aubrey and William Stukeley. The Research section discusses the need to facilitate access to all archives in Part Two, Section 12.7.

2.5 Landscape and biodiversity values

2.5.1 Avebury lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB), a nationally designated protected landscape covering an area of 1,700 sq km between Reading and Swindon to the east and north, and Andover and Devizes to the south and west. The NWDAONB is a unique and spectacular landscape that includes tranquil open downland, ancient woodland, chalk streams and settlements.

Neolitihic dog, Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/Ros

Cle

al


39

2.5.2 Stonehenge lies within Salisbury District Special Landscape Area (SLA). The SLA policy has its roots in the early 1980s and was inherited by the District Councils from the now defunct Structure Plan. It recognises that there are areas of attractive and vulnerable landscape within Wiltshire that do not benefit from statutory designation, including Salisbury Plain and Stonehenge. The SLA policy currently exists as a saved policy alongside the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The policy will however be subject to a review to understand the criteria behind the designation and determine its relevance in the modern planning context.

Landscape Character Assessment

2.5.3 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is an objective method for describing landscape, based on the identification of generic landscape types (eg Open Downland) and more specific landscape character areas (eg the Marlborough Downs). The approach identifies the unique character of different areas of the countryside without making judgements about their relative worth. LCAs are classified based on sense of place, local distinctiveness, characteristic wildlife, natural features and nature of change. There are several LCAs covering the WHS including Natural England’s National Character Areas, Wiltshire LCA, North Wessex Downs LCA, Kennet District LCA, Salisbury District LCA and the Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain LCA.28

National Character Areas

2.5.4 The Stonehenge part of the WHS lies within Natural England’s National Character Area (NCA) 132, Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire Downs, while Avebury falls within NCA 116, Berkshire and Marlborough Downs. Despite falling into different NCAs the two parts have many similarities in terms of habitats, both sharing the characteristics related to chalk downland and a predominantly agricultural land use. The most notable habitats within the WHS are small areas of remnant unimproved species-rich chalk grassland, chalk river and associated wet grassland, woodland and arable.

Biodiversity values

2.5.5 The WHS is positioned in the heart of Wiltshire’s downland. It contains and connects to a wide range of important designations and the biodiversity value of habitats within it is steadily increasing in response to agri-environment incentives. Both Avebury and Stonehenge hold good potential for enhancing biodiversity at a landscape scale in the future most

notably for wildlife-rich chalk grassland where it is making an important contribution to the national picture.

National Nature Reserves (NNRs)

2.5.6 The WHS includes one NNR, Fyfield Down, within its boundary at Avebury, while Parsonage Down and Pewsey Downs lie outside the boundary at Stonehenge and Avebury respectively and are notable for the chalk grassland that would once have existed across the downland landscape in vicinity of the WHS.

See Maps 8 and 19 – Landscape and nature conservation designations

2.5.7 Since the boundary extension at Avebury in 2008 the WHS now contains the whole of the Fyfield Down NNR (228ha). It is the finest area in Britain for naturally occurring sarsen stones which give the area a unique character. Some 25,000 sarsen stones lie where they were formed and are important not only for their geomorphological interest, but also for the lower plant communities they support.

2.5.8 Fyfield Down is considered to be the most important historic environment NNR in the South West. This is reflected in the expansion of the Avebury World Heritage Site boundary to include the NNR. The whole site is a Scheduled Monument.

2.5.9 Parsonage Down NNR lies 3km to the west of the Stonehenge part of the WHS. It is considered to be one of the most outstanding chalk downland sites in Britain. Most of the site has escaped ploughing and other agricultural improvements during the past 100 years. Grazing over the last 60 years has maintained plant and animal diversity with over 150 species of

Naturally occuring sarsens, the Valley of Stones, Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


wildflowers recorded. Pewsey Down NNR lies 2km to the south of the Avebury part of the WHS. Another iconic chalk grassland site, it is of particular importance for its orchid and early gentian populations and supports butterflies including the internationally rare marsh fritillary, the iridescent adonis blue and the chalkhill blue. Both sites are also of archaeological significance, containing several Scheduled Monuments.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special

Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation

2.5.10 There are many chalk grassland SSSIs in the downland landscape around the WHS but Salisbury Plain, abutting the northern edge of the Stonehenge part of the WHS is by far the most significant. The area comprises the largest expanse of unimproved chalk downland in North-West Europe and represents 41% of Britain’s remaining area of this habitat. The survival of this unimproved downland is largely a consequence of Ministry of Defence ownership and use of the area for army training, which has limited intensive farming activity. The SSSI of around 13,000 hectares of chalk downland supports at least 13 species of nationally rare and scarce plants and 67 species of rare and scarce invertebrates. The importance of this area for nature conservation is further recognised at the European level by its designation as a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds, and as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for its chalk grassland plant and butterfly communities. SPAs and SACs are legally protected under the Habitats Directive.

2.5.11 Two SSSIs occur completely within the Avebury part of the WHS. Fyfield Down SSSI (325ha) is notified for both its geomorphological (sarsens) and biological (lichens, semi-natural grassland and scrub) interests. The much smaller Silbury Hill SSSI (2.3ha) is designated for the chalk grassland growing on all aspects of the

steep slopes of this man-made prehistoric mound. The grassland includes typical chalk -loving species including round-headed rampion – a Wiltshire speciality. Silbury Hill has a long history of botanical documentation, the first survey being conducted in 1857. These studies provide a rare and valuable insight into the long-term effects of changes in land use on chalk grassland.

2.5.12 The River Avon provides the sinuous eastern boundary to the Stonehenge part of the WHS. Its valley is a mosaic of woodland and floodplain meadows of high landscape and ecological value with the river itself legally protected as part of the River Avon System SSSI/River Avon SAC. The SSSI and SAC boundaries extend 100m or so into the WHS in some areas. The River Till, whose catchment area lies within the western WHS boundary, is part of the River Avon SAC. The River Avon is one of the richest and most varied chalk streams with over 180 species of aquatic plant, one of the most diverse fish faunas in Britain including Atlantic salmon and lamprey and a wide range of aquatic invertebrates.

Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2014

2.5.13 A new baseline for the WHS was commissioned by English Heritage to support the Management Plan review. The survey work was carried out by Rob Large (Wildlife Sites Project Officer, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust) and field surveys were conducted in April and May 2014. The entire site (5150ha) was initially mapped from rights of way and then subject to detailed botanical surveys where conditions indicated species-rich habitats might be present. Summarising the findings, the survey showed that just over 75% of the WHS was under intensive agricultural management with 2790 hectares under arable and 1082 hectares under improved grassland. The next most abundant habitat type was calcareous grassland with a total area of 322 hectares. The majority of this (242ha) was reversion grassland which has been sown under agri-environment schemes specifically aimed at improving biodiversity. Neutral grassland was slightly less abundant with a total of 243 hectares, 158 hectares of which was reversion grassland. There were about 169 hectares of broadleaved woodland and 105 hectares of marshy grassland. The total percentage of these more biodiverse land uses was 16% (734ha) leaving 9% which was categorised as built up areas, roads, conifer and mixed plantations, scrub, acid grassland and other very minor uses.

2.5.14 The mapping provides a snapshot against which habitat change can be monitored and will enable opportunities for future integrated heritage and natural environment Coneybury chalk grassland flora

© N

atio

nal T

rust


41

conservation. Maps have also been derived of ‘priority’ habitats i.e. those habitats which are recognised as being of principal importance for the conservation of nature under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Under this Act, public authorities have a duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Protection, conservation and enhancement of these habitats is therefore a priority where this is consistent with an authority’s other functions.

See Map 10 and 21 (Habitat survey maps)

County Wildlife Sites

2.5.15 There are a number of non-statutory sites designated within the WHS (see Map 8 and 19). Most County Wildlife Sites (CWS) have been designated for their chalk or neutral grassland interest with several new sites having been identified following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2014. In addition the River Kennet is a chalk stream which flows west to east through the Avebury part of the Site and is here designated as the Rivers Kennet and Og CWS.

Priority habitats

2.5.16 The habitat map (Map 10 and 21) demonstrates the extent of habitats of principal importance. Many of the surviving examples are small and represent fragmented remnants of grasslands that were historically much more abundant. In order to conserve and enhance these areas and increase the resilience of the species that occur there, they should be enlarged and where possible, linked together, to form larger more sustainable tracts of land. Linkages should also be made with unimproved habitats outside the WHS, such as those within CWSs and SSSIs. Where wholesale reversion of fields is not possible, arable margins can be an effective way of linking biodiverse areas.

2.5.17 Considerable progress has been made in recent years to revert arable land to grassland in order to achieve the two-fold benefits of protecting the underlying archaeology and enhancing biodiversity. Reversion has been encouraged by funding from agri-environment schemes and the vision that land-owning non-governmental organisations have for the chalk downlands of Wiltshire. At Stonehenge extensive reversion of chalk grassland has occurred at Stonehenge Down and around Countess Farm on land owned by the National Trust. Overall, the National Trust’s reversion work in the WHS represents one of the largest restoration schemes of its kind in

Europe. Additionally, a new RSPB reserve has been created on private land at Normanton Down to encourage breeding stone-curlew and other species of farmland birds in decline and also provide habitats for invertebrates and chalk flora. At Avebury there have been notable successes following reversion by the National Trust and a number of private landowners. Grassland reversion together with other low input arable options under the agri-environment schemes has led to a marked increase in farmland birds on land at Manor Farm, Avebury Trusloe and elsewhere. This is discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section 8.5 (Conservation).

Woodland

2.5.18 The limited, but widespread, areas of woodland in the WHS are of comparatively recent origin, and are not generally considered to be of high ecological value. The Stonehenge part of the WHS contains many planted woodlands and shelterbelts which are identified in the WHS Woodland Strategy 2015 as being of local ecological significance only. Woodlands along the River Avon valley have greater strategic importance due to their position within the River Avon corridor. They contribute significantly to the functioning of this wildlife corridor and its wider green infrastructure role.

2.5.19 In the Avebury part of the WHS where there are fewer woods, many are plantations of relatively recent origin. Although mostly species-poor and therefore of only local value, over time these woods have developed a modest degree of structural diversity and include many mature trees. More detailed information on woodland at Avebury can be found at 2.2.26 above.

2.5.20 Some of the woodlands are considered to be of historical interest. For example, the Vespasian’s Camp planting and the Nile Clumps at Stonehenge form part of the Amesbury Abbey parkland and at Avebury, Wroughton Copse at Fyfield Down may date back as far as the 14th century.29 The lime trees in Avebury Manor parkland are part of designed landscape now managed by the National Trust.

2.5.21 Overall, woodlands contribute to the diversity and connectivity of habitats in the WHS and require positive management as features of the landscape. They contribute to the overall biodiversity of the WHS and function as screens to hide existing modern structures including Larkhill at Stonehenge and the mobile home park in Avebury. More detailed information is available in the WHS Woodland Strategy.30


Protected species

2.5.22 Surveys for protected species are not comprehensive and much of the information included below is anecdotal or based on the habitat conditions. Good survey information is available for birds however, since a breeding bird survey of the WHS was carried out in 2014 to provide a baseline for the management plan review. These surveys used publicly accessible routes to sample the breeding birds across both parts of the WHS in April/May and June/July. The WHS has an unusually large number of specialist farmland birds and the surveys show that it could easily be considered to be of national importance for this community. Several species breeding in good numbers in the Site are rare or in decline nationally including stone-curlew, tree sparrow, corn bunting, yellow hammer and linnet. Altogether 12 priority species were recorded breeding. Several other farmland specialists were seen which could be encouraged to breed in future with appropriate land management.

2.5.23 All birds are protected from harm while they are nesting and a few in the WHS, including stone-curlew and barn owl, have additional protection to ensure they are not disturbed during the breeding season due to their rarity.

2.5.24 At Avebury the presence of vernacular agricultural buildings and the historic built environment provides habitats for bats. The Great Barn at Avebury is home to five species of bat: Natterer’s, Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long-eared and Serotine. Other buildings in the WHS may also be expected to contain bats given their age, design and rural location. Bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Consequently works to any buildings in the WHS need to consider whether harm may be caused to bats or their roost sites and mitigation taken accordingly.

2.5.25 Along the River Kennet, there are abundant records for water vole. This species is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and any work to the river banks needs to ensure that harm to water voles and their burrows is avoided.

2.5.26 Badgers are abundant throughout the WHS. This species is protected under the Badgers Act 1992 which protects both badgers and their setts in order to safeguard badger welfare. The species is not rare or in decline. Conflict between badgers and archaeological remains arises because their digging causes monuments to be damaged or destabilised and underground remains to be disturbed. Badger setts can be closed down under licence but a strategic approach will be required in order to ensure any measures to control badgers are both proportionate and effective. This is discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section 8.1 (Conservation).

2.5.27 Reptiles, particularly grass snake, slow worm and common lizards, are likely to occur within the WHS. While each species has its own habitat preferences, all three occur in rough grassland near scrub and areas of rocky terrain. All reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) but the habitats of these three species are not.

2.6 Educational and research values

2.6.1 Access to the WHS for recreation and amenity provides opportunities for public understanding and appreciation of prehistory in Britain through the interpretation of Stonehenge and Avebury within its local, regional, national and international contexts.

2.6.2 It is, however, recognised that our current knowledge about the prehistory of the WHS requires continuing research to improve understanding and to inform management initiatives. The WHS offers significant opportunities for pioneering research, the importance of which for archaeology is acknowledged internationally. Both parts of the WHS had their own published research agenda or framework and a joint Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF) is due for publication in 2015. Three significant programmes of research have recently taken place in the Stonehenge part of the WHS – the Stonehenge Riverside Project coordinated by the University of Sheffield, the SPACES Project coordinated by the University of Bournemouth and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project led by the University of Birmingham and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute. At

Stone-curlew chicks

© K

eele

y Sp

ate

RSP

B


43

Avebury the Between the Monuments Project, a collaborative research project between the Universities of Leicester, Southampton, the National Trust and Allen Environmental Archaeology, is underway. The WHS also offers a range of research opportunities into different periods as well as from a range of different disciplines. There is also scope for community engagement in research into various aspects of the WHS. A recent example of this is the Digging War Horse Project (2014) which focused on the site of a First World War Horse Isolation Hospital within the WHS near Larkhill. These issues are discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section 12.0 (Research).

2.6.3 The educational value of the WHS for all ages is recognised. The WHS is important for children at primary level (particularly local schools), at secondary level, and is an essential component of undergraduate courses on British archaeology. Changes in the National Curriculum at primary level to include prehistory from September 2014 are encouraging the further use of the WHS for learning both in and out of the classroom. It is

also important for much post-graduate research, as well as various lifelong learning courses. A number of post-graduate taught courses use the WHS as a case study for heritage management and seek student placements with the WHS Coordination Unit. The WHS is regularly used as an exemplar for understanding the 4th–2nd millennia BC in southern Britain, and so has a universal value as a microcosm of wider archaeological issues for this period. In addition to this the WHS offers great time depth and complex layering of historical periods, most obviously at Avebury, which adds another important dimension to its educational value. Much teaching and research focuses on the WHS and this should be encouraged. The Alexander Keiller Museum with its onsite archive and study room and now the new facilities at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre offer education groups further encouragement to visit and study the WHS. These issues are discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section 10.0 (Interpretation, Learning and Community Engagement).

2.7 Social, artistic and spiritual values

Influence and inspiration

2.7.1 The focus of the rich archaeological landscape in the southern half of the WHS is the most famous prehistoric stone circle in the world. Stonehenge, together with the other principal Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments, has exerted considerable cultural and visual influence over the landscape for the past 5,000 years. Avebury and the major monuments of this part of the WHS, such as Silbury Hill, have had the same powerful influence both locally and further afield.

2.7.2 The Wiltshire Downs and Salisbury Plain have been a focus of attention since the late 17th century for antiquarians, historians, authors and artists, drawn to the area by the unique atmosphere created by the combination of open downland and visible archaeological monuments. Some of the more famous individuals inspired by the landscape are mentioned above at 2.2.6 to 2.2.9 in the section on the historic environment and cultural heritage values of the WHS. It is also a source of inspiration for less well-known artists and amateurs.

Ongoing debate

2.7.3 Stonehenge remains in many ways enigmatic despite the many facts revealed about it and increased understanding gained through the work of archaeologists. The original builders left a monument

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/Mic

hele

Dri

sse

Alexander Keiller Museum children’s activities; planning a dig

© H

arve

y M

ills

Phot

ogra

phy

(ww

.har

veym

ill.c

om)

Julian Richards with school children during the Digging War Horse Project 2014


that continues to puzzle and intrigue, and while theories about the reasons for its construction, the exact manner of its use and its role as a sacred place abound, these can be but speculation. Many have pointed to the astronomical significance of the design. The principal axis (marked by the Avenue and the main entrance to the monument) is aligned with sunrise on the Summer Solstice and sunset on the Winter Solstice. This may suggest that Stonehenge was the focus of sun worship, a feature of many ancient religions. The interpretation of Stonehenge which has most general acceptance is that of a temple where appropriate ceremonies would have attempted to ensure good crops, fertility and the general wellbeing of the population. Newer theories have suggested the role of Stonehenge as a centre for ancestor worship31 or as a cult place of healing.32

2.7.4 Similar speculation takes place at Avebury. Although as yet no compelling evidence has been produced to prove that any of the monuments were designed to align with astronomical events, associations continue to be sought. The purpose or significance of Silbury Hill for example has been the focus of much debate. It has been excavated on a number of occasions since the Duke of Northumberland funded the exploration led by Colonel Drax in 1776 convinced there must be something of great interest or value within the ‘pyramid’. In more recent times Professor Richard Atkinson led a project filmed by the BBC as part of its Chronicle series in 1968. The English Heritage-led conservation project of 2007 points to a monument built up over several generations with each phase

having a meaning to the society who added it: an extended ‘Big Society’ project.33 Alternative, or what might be termed New Age, theories abound.

Spiritual resonance

2.7.5 People down the ages have found spiritual inspiration from the Stonehenge landscape. Today, the monument continues to have a role as a sacred place of special religious and cultural significance in the minds and faiths of some visitors. The spiritual dimension of Stonehenge and its surroundings is valued by many as an important opportunity for reflection and renewal, and not just for groups with strong religious values and beliefs. Despite the proximity of roads and the large numbers of visitors, Stonehenge inspires a strong sense of awe and humility in many people: it is a mystical ancient place where it is still possible momentarily to ‘escape’ the concerns of modern life and gain an insight into the

Summer Solstice, Stonehenge

© N

1005

66 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Walker in the Stonehenge landscape

© B

eth

Tho

mas


45

lives of our ancestors. Avebury and its wider landscape carries this same spiritual resonance for both groups and individuals. It is not only the Avebury Henge but a number of other monuments and natural features which are considered sacred by some. Important foci include Silbury Hill, West Kennet Long Barrow and Swallowhead Springs.

Recreation and access

2.7.6 Many who visit the WHS might not be tourists or interested in spiritual values but appreciate the opportunity for recreation in the open landscape. Many returning visitors are local to the WHS and enjoy simply walking, exercising or playing with the family. Open access to the WHS landscape is an important recreational value. This is possible in much of the National Trust owned areas and where landowners have allowed open access through stewardship schemes. Open access to the monument itself at Stonehenge is not possible for such large numbers of visitors but at Avebury this is one of the most valued parts of the experience. Local residents at Stonehenge are given free access to the Visitor Centre and the monument. Much valued access to some parts of the wider landscape at Stonehenge is possible on public rights of way and where permissive access has been granted by landowners. Public access is discussed in Part Two, Section 9.5 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism).

WHS as home

2.7.7 The WHS is home to many. This is particularly pertinent at Avebury where about 500 people live in the four settlements in the parish that are within the Site, and about 600 more live in adjacent parishes that are partly within the WHS. Some members of the community were born in the WHS or have lived there for many years while others have decided to move to the area. The WHS has many more personal values than simply its OUV but in addition to these it can give another layer of identity and pride. At Stonehenge the WHS has the potential to offer this to those who are posted to Larkhill or nearby barracks. As part of army rebasing many more families will arrive in the Stonehenge area and are likely to stay for extended periods. The local community in both parts of the WHS also has a key role in managing the site through involvement in working groups and committees, consultation events and the possibility to engage directly through volunteering. Many of the issues are discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section 10.0 (Interpretation, learning and community engagement).

2.8 Tourism and economic values

2.8.1 Stonehenge enjoys a particular place in modern culture. Visitor numbers have grown rapidly, from around 500,000 visitors per annum in the late 1970s to c 1.3 million in 2014. Stonehenge is perceived internationally as a ‘must see’ attraction and around half of its visitors come from abroad. It is one of the most popular sites in Britain for visitors; indeed it is the most visited archaeological site in Britain. The Avebury 2005 Plan states that the Site attracts around 350,000 visitors.34 Visitor figures are very difficult to assess on an open site. The last attempt to calculate visitor numbers was the Bournemouth University study undertaken in 1998. The Management Plan recognises that this is an issue and there are a number of actions related to achieving a more accurate assessment of visitor numbers to the Avebury WHS in this Management Plan. This is discussed further in Part Two, Section 9.3 (Visitor management).

2.8.2 The new Visitor Centre at Stonehenge and the redisplayed galleries at the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums provide the opportunity for visitors to stay longer in the county which if strategically and carefully managed could deliver substantial economic benefits to Wiltshire.

2.8.3 The WHS offers the opportunity of employment related to tourism and conservation and management of the historic environment, as well as visitor welcome, retail and catering roles. It could provide opportunities for apprenticeships in these areas.

Wiltshire produce at the Community Shop, Avebury

© C

laire

Ben

nett


2.8.4 A number of farms lie wholly or partly within the WHS. These have significant economic values and provide a source of income to many people. At Stonehenge the northern areas of the WHS are owned and used by the Ministry of Defence as part of the Army Training Estate (Salisbury Plain), the most important and largest training estate in the UK, and includes a garrison which is home to many.

2.8.5 In Avebury there are a number of private businesses linked closely to the WHS. Some local residents offer bed and breakfast and there are three pubs within the WHS. The Henge Shop sells books and gifts in the High Street. The Community Shop is one of the busiest in the county and helps to support local producers across Wiltshire by stocking their products which are promoted to an international market. In addition it puts all its profits back into the community, bringing social value from the economic benefits of the WHS.

3.0 REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.1 Evaluation of the 2005 and 2009 Management Plans

3.1.1 The Management Plans at both Avebury and Stonehenge have played a central role in the way that the two parts of the WHS have been managed. They have been used in planning decisions, education and interpretation, funding prioritisation and work programmes. A great deal has been achieved in both parts of the WHS due in large part to the excellent partnership working in and around the WHS. A great number of the objectives and actions for Avebury and Stonehenge are either complete or ongoing. Outstanding actions have been brought forward where appropriate into the new joint Management Plan and the most effective way to complete them considered and updated as required.

3.1.2 Throughout the recent period work undertaken in the two parts of the WHS has been more closely coordinated and a large number of projects have been completed jointly. These include:

Arable Reversion Opportunities Mapping project (2010/2012)

Megalith, the WHS Newsletter

WHS Condition Survey (2012) Megalith WHS Newsletter (2013/14) Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website (2013) Exploring the WHS: Stonehenge and Avebury Walkers’

Map (English Heritage 2013) WHS Climate Change Risk Assessment (2014) WHS Woodland Strategy (2015) Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Research Framework

(2015)

3.1.3 A major achievement for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS was the development of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Statement of OUV, 2013). This followed the development of the Statement of Significance agreed for both parts of the WHS in 2008. This document provides a comprehensive overview of the value of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS and underpins the management of the WHS as a whole. It will be invaluable in determining planning applications and shaping future projects and schemes across the WHS.

3.1.4 Both parts of the WHS have enjoyed developing relationships with educational institutions at primary, secondary and tertiary level. English Heritage and the National Trust have worked closely to provide the tremendously popular ‘Stones and Bones’ Discovery Visit for primary school children. Also at primary level, the ‘Avenue to Learning’ project developed by members of the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG) was a great success which needs to be built on during the life of this Management Plan. At the secondary level, students from Sheldon School and Salisbury and South Wiltshire Grammar School have taken part in the UNESCO youth summits at Lyme Regis and Greenwich. Students from the Institute of Archaeology at University College London and Bath Spa University have undertaken placements in the Avebury WHS. It is hoped that this work can be developed further during the lifetime of this Management Plan.

3.1.5 The value of ongoing good relationships and dialogue between individuals and organisations working and living in the WHS is evident in the excellent progress made in both parts of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

3.1.6 Both parts of the WHS have seen a loss in both staff and financial resources with the closure of the Stonehenge Curatorial Unit in English Heritage and the downturn of the economy affecting the budgets of both public sector and charitable bodies. At the current time both Wiltshire Council and Historic England are


47

committed to continuing the funding of the WHS Coordination Unit and the two Coordinator posts. An adequately staffed Coordination Unit is essential if the progress in the management of the WHS and the implementation of the actions in the Management Plan are to continue.

3.2 Evaluation of the Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005

3.2.1 The 2005 Avebury WHS Management Plan contained 26 objectives and a further 45 strategies for com-pletion within the lifetime of the Plan. Of these, just four remained ‘outstanding’ at the time of the Avebury WHS Management Plan review in 2012.

Monuments and their landscape setting

3.2.2 One of the major achievements since 2005 has been the Silbury Hill Conservation Project which took place in 2007/8. English Heritage engaged Skanska Construction to carry out works to stabilise the Hill. This work not only conserved and protected the Hill which was at risk but also gathered a huge amount of archaeological evidence which has led to a re-evaluation of dating and construction phases and provided valuable environmental data from the monument.35

3.2.3 The joint Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Condition Survey for the first time included monuments encompassed by the Avebury WHS Boundary Review. Work to protect vulnerable monuments from damage caused by badgers and other burrowing animals is ongoing and will be a priority in this Plan.

3.2.4 The Countryside Stewardship Special Project of 2002 which was developed in partnership between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), English Heritage and the National Trust led to considerable creation of semi-natural species-rich grassland areas within the WHS. At Avebury, 140 hectares were put back to grassland and major gains included the protection of key monuments such as Longstones Cove and Beckhampton Avenue, Beckhampton Hill barrow cemetery, the extensive Bronze Age field system and settlement complex adjacent to the Ridgeway, large sections of the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures, the southern portion of Waden Hill and Horslip and West Kennet Long Barrows.

3.2.5 The extension to the Avebury part of the WHS boundary of around 300 hectares was approved by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 200836 and

brought into the WHS key monuments such as East Kennet Long Barrow and the whole of the National Nature Reserve (NNR) at Fyfield Down, one of the few places remaining where naturally occurring sarsen stones can be found in situ. The area also includes impressive Bronze Age field systems. The extension rationalised the boundary where in a number of places it bisected important barrow cemeteries.

3.2.6 A significant improvement to the setting of Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery, the Sanctuary and West Kennet Avenue as well as the wider WHS landscape was achieved in 2010 through the undergrounding of electricity poles and cables on the ridgeline at the eastern gateway of the WHS beside the A4. This attracted around £220,000 of private sector funding from Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE). The project represented excellent partnership working between the WHS, the National Trust, English Heritage, the North Wessex Downs AONB and local landowners and farmers. Undergrounding work completed at Bray Street opened up views to Silbury Hill and improved views from Windmill Hill to the north beyond the boundaries of the WHS but within its setting. Further undergrounding supported by SSE is planned under the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures during the life of this Management Plan. There may be scope to propose further stretches if funding is available.

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds

Overton Hill before and after the undergrounding project to remove intrusive overhead electricity cables, 2010


3.2.7 From 2007 to 2009 an exercise was carried out with WHS partners to identify target areas for the expansion of grassland reversion in the Avebury part of the WHS. The working group looked at all land parcels within the WHS and scored them on an agreed set of criteria including vulnerability to ploughing, site survival, integrity, significance and potential as well as assessing how they contribute to the attributes of OUV of the WHS. This information will be invaluable in assisting Natural England and others when assessing applications for the Countryside Stewardship Schemes which begin in 2016. The model was repeated for Stonehenge in 2012.

3.2.8 In 2008/9 a map was produced by members of AAHRG incorporating the results of a detailed survey work carried out on the Ridgeway for the Ridgeway Surface Protection Group led by Wiltshire Council. This data will be invaluable in both the strategic planning of appropriate and sensitive route maintenance on the Ridgeway National Trail as well as its implementation on the ground.

3.2.9 Another key achievement over the life of the 2005 Plan has been the continuation of the Local Management Agreement (LMA) between English Heritage and the National Trust for the management of those monuments in the Guardianship of the State. A further agreement was made in 2014 for three years. The agreement makes provision for shared, targeted funding for the Guardianship monuments at Avebury and is a key factor in the ongoing management of these monuments.

Planning and policy framework

3.2.10 The demands for change created by a living and working community within the Avebury part of the WHS requires sensitive management. A number of planning applications have been influenced by the policies set out in the Management Plan and advice of the WHS Officer and other WHS partners. Some cumulative development has taken place and future trends and pressures need to be carefully monitored. The protection of the WHS and its attributes of OUV feature in the Core Strategy for Wiltshire Council.

3.2.11 The main outstanding action from the 2005 Plan is the development of a Setting Study for the WHS and the publication of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or relevant guidance for planners and developers. This will be undertaken for both parts of the WHS in the lifetime of this Plan.

Traffic and parking management

3.2.12 The major progress achieved during the Plan period has been the production of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy 2015 which takes an holistic approach to road and traffic issues within the WHS. Many of the objectives and strategies set out in the initial 1998 Avebury Management Plan were carried forward to the updated version in 2005 and continued to be difficult to deliver. Although measurable progress was made against some objectives, more fundamental improvements were difficult to achieve. The Transport Strategy has established an approach and recommended schemes within the WHS agreed by delivery partners, curators, managers and representatives

Silbury Hill Conservation Project, 2007

Phot

omos

aic

by E

ddie

Lyo

ns ©

His

tori

c En

glan

d


49

of the local community to balance the concerns of all parties and safeguard the WHS while retaining a viable transport network. It includes a set of design principles and specific outline schemes. Its recommendations are included in this Management Plan and further discussed in Part Two, Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

3.2.13 Traffic and parking have an immediate impact on the community living in the Avebury area. In 2007 the National Trust carried out a feasibility study and consultation regarding camping and parking for solstice and other pagan observances which considered possible alternative locations. Due to the many constraints in the WHS it was decided that the status quo – the main National Trust car park and overflow – was the best alternative.

3.2.14 In 2009 the National Trust reviewed the feasibility of a northern car park on the west of the A4361 but it was considered unworkable for a number of reasons including landscape impact, logistics and minimal benefits to be gained. Policy TR9 of the Kennet Local Plan to retain parking capacity at existing levels remains in force having been saved alongside the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Public access and sustainable tourism

3.2.15 At the time of the 2005 Plan there was considerable focus on the carrying capacity of Avebury and the impact of visitors on the community. The identification of ‘carrying capacity’ is no longer recognised as best practice. There are too many variables such as climate and ground conditions which could affect any notional carrying capacity and too many issues beyond the control of managers of sites such as Avebury. A Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) model was called for. This Aim has been carried forward into the updated Plan. The LAC model should be re-examined and if possible a simple workable system developed across the WHS.

3.2.16 In 2007 ‘drapes’ were installed at each end of the south-east quadrant of the Henge where there is particularly heavy visitor footfall. These are not universally popular due to their visual impact but they have reduced potential loss of archaeology by erosion at this location. It is encouraging that the WHS Condition Survey published in 2012 noted that damage by visitors was reduced and the regular monitoring of conservation work at Avebury through the LMA between English Heritage and the National Trust has seen more targeted investment in managing erosion caused by footfall at key locations such as the Henge.

3.2.17 Access for pagan observances such as at Summer and Winter Solstices and the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes continues to be managed well through the

partnership of the Sacred Sites Forum (SSF) led by the National Trust and the Solstice Operational Planning meetings which includes representatives of the relevant WHS partner organisations and the local community. Attendance at pagan observances continues to grow and this and any resulting impact on the monuments should be monitored during the lifetime of this plan.

3.2.18 The Avebury Tourist Information Centre located in the United Reformed Church Chapel on Green Street was closed due to the withdrawal of funding by Wiltshire Council in 2010/11 following public sector cuts by central government. The loss of this facility to provide information on accommodation, facilities and other attractions in the county is felt strongly by some. Actions related to this are noted in this Management Plan in Part Two, Section 9.0 (Visitor management and sustainable tourism).

3.2.19 A major achievement for Avebury was the publication of the Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack. This highly participative project ran from 2007 to 2008 and culminated in the publication of Values and Voices37 which gave a platform for professionals working in the WHS and those living in it to voice how and why they valued the WHS. This project resulted in a wider involvement of those living in the locality with the WHS and greater community engagement. The current Plan includes an action to review the possibility of refreshing the project and extending it to Stonehenge.

3.2.20 Monitoring indicators for both parts of the WHS were established in 2003. However their implementation has not been consistent. A more streamlined approach is recommended in this Plan and a review of the indicators. Since 2005, two Periodic Reports have been completed for UNESCO: the first in 2006 and the second in 2013.

Archaeological research

3.2.21 The pioneering Avebury Archaeological Research Agenda produced in 2001 has helped to focus research on the key gaps in our knowledge of the WHS. AAHRG has acted as a focus for discussion and information exchange. Following a review of the Research Agenda it was agreed to produce a joint Research Framework for both parts of the WHS due to be published in 2015. The expansion of AAHRG to include researchers with

Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack 2008


an interest in Stonehenge to form the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) is a welcome development which took place in 2014.

3.2.22 Since 2005 the following projects have taken place in Avebury: Between the Monuments (2013 – ongoing); Silbury Hill ( 2007) – the monograph detailing this work has recently been published;38 geophysical surveys and excavations focusing on the Romano-British settlement adjacent to Silbury Hill39 were undertaken as part of the Later Silbury Project; a new programme of dating six long barrows in southern Britain included West Kennet Long Barrow;40 extensive geophysical survey in the Avebury Landscape by Darvill and Leüth undertaken during 2013; and results of the ‘Negotiating Avebury Project’ (1999–2004) which were published in 2008.41 Further details can be found below in Section 3.5 (Changes in knowledge).

3.3 Evaluation of the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009

3.3.1 The Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009 was produced after the failure of the Countess Road visitor centre proposals owing to the decision by Department of Transport that it could not fund the proposed road scheme for the A303 at Stonehenge. Margaret Hodge, the then Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism asked English Heritage to produce an updated management plan and review the location of a new visitor facility at Stonehenge with the aim ‘to deliver environmental improvements to Stonehenge, including new visitor facilities, in keeping with its status as a world heritage site by the beginning of 2012.’ Barbara Follett, the then Minister for Culture, noted in the Foreword to the 2009 Plan that it would provide a ‘strategic framework for environmental improvements, including the closure of the junction of the A303 and A344 and the relocation and upgrading of the current visitor facilities’.42

3.3.2 There were seven priorities identified in the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009. The 2009 Plan priority to ‘enhance the visitor experience by 2012 by providing improved interim facilities’ was achieved in December 2013 alongside significant enhancement of the setting and integrity achieved thorough the closure of the A344. Others have been partly addressed or are ongoing remaining priorities in the current Plan period. Some key outstanding priorities are the minor extension to the Stonehenge WHS boundary and the reduction of the impact of the A303.

Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project

3.3.3 The Management Plan has been of assistance to the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project Team, led by English Heritage, in achieving its task. The Plan was a key reference during the planning process for the visitor centre and Inquiries into the Stopping Up of and Traffic Regulation Order on the A344. Whilst the byways within the WHS were not closed to motorised vehicles following the public inquiry held in 2011, the A344 was partially stopped up and the Visitor Centre finally opened to the public in December 2013. Stonehenge now has visitor facilities appropriate for this iconic World Heritage Site.

Stonehenge Visitor Centre completed in December 2013

Jam

es O

Dav

ies

© D

P163

152

His

tori

c En

glan

d

Site visit with then Stonehenge Director Loraine Knowles to the Visitor Centre under construction by the Wiltshire and Salisbury Museums and the Visit Wiltshire Directors, 2013

© H

isto

ric

Engl

and


51

3.3.4 The A303 continues to have a detrimental visual and aural impact on the World Heritage Site and its integrity, effectively cutting the Site in two, and is causing considerable frustration at certain times to both local residents and travellers using the road. A Government announcement on upgrading the A303 was made on 1 December 2014 and further discussion on a proposed way forward will take place between relevant bodies and stakeholders. DCMS has informed UNESCO’S World Heritage Committee of the Government’s intention and they have passed this on to ICOMOS their advisers on cultural WHSs.

Planning policy

3.3.5 Development pressure could be perceived as less intense in the Stonehenge part of the WHS because the monuments are set away from residential areas. However, Stonehenge is far from immune from the impacts of development. Changes in agricultural practice, the Ministry of Defence Rebasing 2020 project and the need for an increase in housing generally could all have impacts on the WHS. As at Avebury good working relationships between all parties have resulted in generally positive outcomes for the WHS as the discussions throughout 2013 and 2014 on future developments at Larkhill Garrison demonstrate.

Interpretation and learning

3.3.6 The new Visitor Centre has achieved a number of the interpretation and learning goals of the 2009 Plan. The Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy (2011) was an essential part of the development of a new interpretation scheme not

just for the Visitor Centre but for English Heritage and the National Trust working in partnership for the landscape around the Stones and the developments at the Wiltshire (2013) and Salisbury Museums (2014). The link between the Stones and the landscape around them has never been made clearer to visitors. The English Heritage and National Trust Stonehenge Landscape websites have been updated to include a number of online resources including a revised interactive map and downloadable walks.

3.3.7 A new education room provides undercover facilities for at least some of the more than 45,000 educational visitors to Stonehenge each year. The Education Room provides audio visual facilities and houses interactive exhibits which can bring the development and history of Stonehenge to life for learners of all ages. New Discovery Visits have been developed and within the first year numbers have already increased substantially, 43 partly due to the inclusion of prehistory in the primary curriculum from September 2014. The Stonehenge Learning and Outreach Coordination Group (SLOCG) has provided welcome peer support for staff working for English Heritage, the National Trust, Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums and Wessex Archaeology on Heritage Lottery Funded programmes. The group meets around four times a year and has held a number of joint events, including volunteer recruitment days and valuable volunteer social events where different aspects of the WHS and its management are explored.

Archaeological research

3.3.8 A number of archaeological research projects have

360 degree experience of the stone circle in the Visitor Centre

© D

P163

172

His

tori

c En

glan

d


taken place since 2009 or are ongoing all of which add to our growing understanding of the Stonehenge part of the WHS and the prehistoric environment. Projects that have been undertaken in recent years include: Stonehenge full laser scan and analysis; Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes geophysics project; Feeding Stonehenge; Sounds of Stonehenge; English Heritage Stonehenge Landscape Project; dating causewayed enclosures and the Blick Mead Project at Vespasian’s Camp which is ongoing. There have also been a number of projects focusing on museum collections or fieldwork outside the WHS, including The Stones of Stonehenge; bluestone petrological analysis and Normanton Down Barrows research. The updating of the Stonehenge WHS Research Framework44 as part of a combined Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Research Framework is a welcome initiative.

Conservation within the WHS

3.3.9 The ecological value of the WHS continues to be strengthened with continuing initiatives such as the stone-curlew reserve at Normanton Down managed by the RSPB. The reserve was extended in 2014 by a further 34 hectares to complement the Higher Level Stewardship Schemes of Natural England. In preparation for establishing a clearer understanding of the ecological value of the WHS, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey45 and a bird survey, focusing on presence and abundance of species, were carried out in 2014 and these will provide base line surveys for both parts of the WHS to inform future work and mapping of ecological value. Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is inscribed as a cultural WHS but the conservation of the natural environment plays a crucial role in the successful management of the historic environment.

3.3.10 Since 2009 the planned areas of grassland reversion at Stonehenge have been completed. Further gains are hoped at both Stonehenge and Avebury through a more targeted approach based on both bio-diversity and historic environment values. The Arable Reversion Opportunities Mapping carried out in 2012 used the same methodology as that used at Avebury to identify priority areas for grassland reversion and protection.

3.4 Changes in governance of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

3.4.1 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS governance review of 2012 has resulted in a coherent approach to managing the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. In addition to the two local Steering Committees, a

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel led by an Independent Chair enables a consistent approach across the whole WHS. This development together with the setting up of the WHS Coordination Unit hosted by Wiltshire Council and jointly funded by Wiltshire Council and Historic England strengthens the ability of the WHS to implement the actions of the Management Plan. This is discussed further in Section 5.0 (Current Management Context).

3.5 Changes in knowledge since 2005/2009

3.5.1 Since the last Plans were published in 2005 (Avebury) and 2009 (Stonehenge), the WHS has seen a significant amount of archaeological research, including excavations, non-intrusive surveys and desk-based studies. The Stonehenge Research Framework46 and the Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site47 have continued to provide stimuli to new research in the area, influencing a number of ongoing research projects within the WHS and the curatorial decisions taken in response to research proposals.

Stonehenge

3.5.2 In the Stonehenge area, the fieldwork phase of the Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP), led by Mike Parker Pearson, was completed in 2009. Discoveries included a Late Neolithic settlement at Durrington Walls, a roadway or avenue leading from the Southern Circle to the River Avon, and sockets for what was probably once a small stone circle and henge monument at West Amesbury adjacent to the junction between the Stonehenge Avenue and the River Avon.48

The latter site also revealed a Mesolithic presence. Other excavations have provided new radiocarbon dates for the Stonehenge Cursus,49 for Amesbury 42 Long Barrow, and for several other monuments, including new information on the cremations at Stonehenge. The post-excavation and writing up of this project is ongoing, and it has led to two further projects, ‘Feeding Stonehenge’ and the ‘Stones of Stonehenge’ (see below). There are plans for three monographs to be published detailing all the results of the SRP project.

3.5.3 The SPACES project (the Strumble Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study), led by Geoffrey Wainwright and Timothy Darvill, included excavations at Stonehenge in 2008. An interim report was published50 and post-excavation work is still underway.


53

3.5.4 Again in the Stonehenge area, seasonal excavations have taken place since 2006 at Blick Mead, near a spring at Vespasian’s Camp. Led by David Jacques, these excavations have revealed an important Mesolithic home-base site. Excavations are continuing at this site each summer.

3.5.5 Within the Stonehenge part of the WHS, there have been several non-intrusive archaeological survey projects, all of which have improved our knowledge of this landscape. A team from English Heritage has conducted detailed archaeological earthwork surveys of all of the monuments in the Stonehenge WHS, including most of the barrow cemeteries and the Stonehenge Cursus. Also as part of this project there was a geophysical survey of the Stonehenge triangle and monument; new analysis of aerial photographs, particularly in relation to the military remains in the area and laser scanning of Stonehenge itself (see below). This project has published at least 20 reports,51 and an overarching monograph is to be published in 2015.

3.5.6 In the Stonehenge landscape a large-scale geophysical survey has been undertaken by two teams: one led by Timothy Darvill and Fritz Leüth has covered 200 hectares of the northern half of the WHS52; the other, the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project led by Vince Gaffney as part of a University of Birmingham/

Ludwig Boltzmann Institute project, has covered a larger area totalling 14 square kilometres.53 Their discoveries, which are yet to be fully analysed, include several new suggested monuments, two pits within and a number of entrances to the Stonehenge Cursus and, in 2014, the remains of a timber structure beneath the long barrow immediately to the south of the Cuckoo Stone. In addition a line of pits were discovered under the bank at Durrington Walls that may contain either recumbent stones or once have held wooden posts.

3.5.7 In 2011, a laser survey of the standing remains of Stonehenge was undertaken by English Heritage. This was followed in 2012 by a detailed archaeological assessment of the megaliths, which identified traces of stone working on nearly every stone, revealing new evidence for how the stones were shaped.54 In addition, numerous new Bronze Age carvings were found, bringing the total of known carvings to 115. There has also been new petrological analysis of the bluestones from Stonehenge, led by Richard Bevins, which has led to more accurate knowledge about the specific outcrops within the Preseli Hills which were the origins of the bluestones at Stonehenge. This work is ongoing but different aspects have been published in several academic papers. Excavations by Mike Parker Pearson were undertaken in 2013 and 2014 at one of these sites, Craig Rhos-y-felin at Pont Saeson, where there appears to have been a bluestone quarry. This is

Hidden Landscape Project Stonehenge: new monuments distribution. Prof. Vincent Gaffney, University of Bradford

© 2

014

LBI A

rchP

ro, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d


part of the Stones of Stonehenge Project, which has also included excavations and survey work at Clatford and the Kennet Valley. There has also been a review of the radiocarbon dates and chronology of Stonehenge, leading to a new published sequence for the site.55 Finally there is a new project proposal to look at the origins of sarsen stones led by David Nash and Timothy Darvill, which may provide fruitful results indicating the origins of the sarsen stones at both Stonehenge and Avebury.

Avebury

3.5.8 In the Avebury area, geophysical surveys and excavations (in 2013 and 2014) were undertaken at the middle Neolithic occupation site identified by Alexander Keiller part way along the West Kennet Avenue. This work is part of the Between the Monuments Project, a collaborative project between the Universities of Southampton and Leicester, the National Trust and Allen Environmental Archaeology, which aims to investigate the evidence for occupation and landscape inhabitation in the Avebury landscape in the 4th to 2nd millennia BC. A precursor to this project in 2007 recovered evidence for middle Neolithic occupation at Rough Leaze immediately to the east of Avebury Henge.56

3.5.9 In addition, a major conservation project at Silbury Hill was led by English Heritage in 2007, including archaeological survey, excavation and recording. This work has revealed the complex multi-phase archaeology within the hill and has provided new radiocarbon dates for its construction. Subsequently the Later Silbury Project investigated the Roman settlement to the south of Silbury Hill that had been revealed as part of the geophysical investigations undertaken in preparation for the conservation programme. The monograph detailing this work was published in 2013.57

3.5.10 The results of the Negotiating Avebury Project (1999–2004) were published in 2008.58 This project confirmed the existence of the Beckhampton megalithic avenue (on the western side of the Henge monument), a Cove consisting of a four-stone setting at the terminus of the Beckhampton Avenue and Falkner’s Circle, as well as discovering a new Neolithic enclosure in Longstones Field, Beckhampton.

3.5.11 Between 2012 and 2014 Timothy Darvill and Fritz Leüth embarked on a campaign of extensive geophysical survey in the Avebury Landscape.59 Areas covered so far include Windmill Hill, Waden Hill, parts of the West Kennet Avenue and the interior of Avebury Henge.

Stonehenge and Avebury

3.5.12 Several large-scale projects focusing on existing museum collections have had, or will have, an impact on our understanding of both parts the WHS. The first of these is the Beaker People Project, a study into mobility, migration and diet in the Early Bronze Age. This project included the study of many human remains from the WHS. Another is the Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods Project, which has re-examined and re-assessed many artefacts from round barrows in the WHS, including Bush Barrow.60 The final publications of these two projects are expected imminently. Thirdly, the Gathering Time dating causewayed enclosures project has provided us with new radiocarbon date estimates for the different phases of both Robin Hood’s Ball and Windmill Hill, setting these within a wider context of both British causewayed enclosures and the early Neolithic in general.61 The Histories of the Dead team undertook a new programme of dating of six long barrows in southern Britain including West Kennet Long Barrow.62

3.5.13 Finally, research at two sites outside the WHS may also shed new light on the monument complexes at Avebury and Stonehenge. At Marden in the Vale of Pewsey, excavations in 2010 by English Heritage led to the discovery of a small building on the bank of a small henge within the larger henge enclosure, as well as a roadway through one of the entrances leading towards the River Avon. Further excavation work is planned for other nearby monuments identified through aerial photography and geophysical survey.63 The archaeology at Marden is important for understanding the links between Stonehenge and Avebury, and for our knowledge about large henge enclosures and monument complexes. Recent fieldwork that has conclusively demonstrated that the Marlborough

Between the Monuments Project: West Kennet Avenue excavation 2013

© B

eth

Tho

mas


55

mound is of Neolithic date, has implications for our understanding of Silbury Hill as well as the wider landscape context within which the Avebury portion of the WHS is situated.64

3.5.14 Many other archaeological books about the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site have also been published since 2005/2009, which are detailed in the Bibliography.

4.0 CURRENT POLICY CONTEXT

4.1 UNESCO policies and guidance

UNESCO’s Mission and Strategic Objectives

4.1.1 The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) is one of a family of UNESCO Conventions dealing with heritage. As such, it figures strongly in UNESCO’s overall objectives and policies. UNESCO’s mission is:

‘As a specialized agency of the United Nations, UNESCO contributes to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information’.

4.1.2 UNESCO’s current Medium Term Strategy (2014 to 2021) is structured around two overarching objectives:

Peace – Contributing to lasting peace Sustainable Development – Contributing to

sustainable development and the eradication of poverty

4.1.3 These objectives are translated into nine Strategic Objectives (SO):

SO 1: Developing education systems to foster quality lifelong learning opportunities for all

SO 2: Empowering learners to be creative and responsible global citizens

SO 3: Shaping the future education agenda SO 4: Promoting the interface between science,

policy and society and ethical and inclusive policies for sustainable developmentSO 5: Strengthening international science cooperation for peace, sustainability and social inclusion

SO 6: Supporting inclusive social development and promoting intercultural dialogue and the rapprochement of cultures

SO 7: Protecting, promoting and transmitting heritage SO 8: Fostering creativity and the diversity of cultural

expressions SO 9: Promoting freedom of expression, media

development and universal access to information and knowledge

4.1.4 The most directly relevant of these Strategic Objectives for the Management Plan is SO 7: Protecting, promoting and transmitting heritage. A summary of expected outcomes for this objective is listed below:

Cultural and natural heritage as a driver for sustainable development integrated into the post-2015 agenda

Heritage management and safeguarding strengthened and promoted at national levels, in particular in Africa

Access to and preservation of documentary heritage in all its forms enhanced

A new mechanism developed to monitor and assess the intentional destruction and damage to cultural heritage

Cultural dimensions included in country level disaster risk reduction policies and crisis responses

Reconciliation processes enhanced through global and regional initiatives and curriculum support

Engagement of youth strengthened in heritage preservation and safeguarding as well as peace building initiatives.

Rock Hewn Churches Lalibela WHS, Ethiopia

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


4.1.5 These internationally-agreed strategic objectives should be reflected in Member-States’ policy, procedural and management approaches to WHS, down to the level of individual Sites where practicable. This accords with the UK Government’s aims for UNESCO. The UNESCO Strategic Objectives are at some level pertinent to the overall approach to protecting and managing Stonehenge and Avebury and are reflected in the aims, policies and actions throughout this Plan. The updated Management Plan includes aims, policies and actions which reflect the spirit of the following UNESCO expected outcomes: sustainable development; strengthened heritage safeguarding; access and preservation of documentary heritage; disaster risk reduction; and the engagement of youth through education and apprenticeships.

Benefits of WHSs to the UK

4.1.6 Signing the Convention is not simply a matter of meeting UNESCO obligations and aspirations. In fact World Heritage Sites provide a number of important opportunities for the UK to:

Maintain and enhance UK standards in management and promotion

Promote sustainable tourism Gain sustainable economic benefits for the UK Support cultural diversity and community identity,

and citizenship Promote capacity building particularly for young

people in both the UK and in developing countries Address climate change and sustainability challenges Meet UK Government’s commitments to the

developing world – especially Africa.

4.1.7 The UK National Commission for UNESCO (UKNC) was set up by Government to advise on all matters concerning UNESCO and to act as a focal point between the Government, civil society and UNESCO. In the recent report The Wider Value of UNESCO to the UK 2012–2013, UKNC concluded that there are major benefits to UNESCO membership including its contribution to the UK’s development agenda in education, science, heritage and culture and support for the UK foreign policy priorities of human rights and freedom of expression. In addition the financial benefit of UNESCO membership to the UK’s 180 UNESCO-affiliated organisations is an estimated £90 million per year. Available data suggests that World Heritage designation contributes c £61.1 million of this benefit.

4.1.8 The UKNC views WHSs as key focal points and catalysts for change on a truly global scale focusing on people and

their environments. Such globally recognised sites:

Provide opportunities for international cooperation, developing and sharing good practice, and for capacity-building

Act as drivers for managing sustainable change, including community participation in managing change and developing public support for conservation

Act as focal points for standard-setting, including informed, consistent and balanced decision-making

Act as focal points for developing sustainable communities, promoting diversity and enhancing cultural understanding

Provide opportunities for education, access and learning

Provide a platform for improving public awareness and understanding of UNESCO’s goals and objectives

Act as exemplars in management policy, practice and procedures

Provide opportunities for sustainable tourism and regeneration.

The aims, policies and actions set out in the updated Management Plan reflect all of the above roles and opportunities related to WHS status identified by UKNC.

Ironbridge Gorge, one of 28 UK WHSs

© N

0700

66 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


57

World Heritage Convention obligations

4.1.9 The basic definition of UK responsibilities for its World Heritage Sites is set out in Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention (1972). This says:

Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 [i.e. World Heritage Sites] and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain.

In addition Article 5 requires that the WHS ‘give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community’. Article 27 requires education and information programmes to strengthen appreciation and respect for cultural and natural heritage. These requirements along with the others set out in the Convention are reflected in the relevant sections of the Management Plan.

WHS management system and plan

4.1.10 The World Heritage Committee has adopted Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. These are periodically revised, most recently in July 2013 when minor non-substantive changes were made to the 2012 edition. The 2005 Operational Guidelines (108–112) for the first time spelled out what was meant by a management system and how it should work:

Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the Outstanding Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means

The purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations

An effective management system depends on the type, characteristics and needs of the nominated property and its cultural and natural context. Management systems may vary according to different cultural perspectives, the resources available and other factors. They may incorporate traditional practices, existing urban or regional planning instruments, and other planning control mechanisms, both formal and informal

In recognising the diversity mentioned above, common elements of an effective management system could include:

a) A thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders

b) A cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback

c) The involvement of partners and stakeholders d) The allocation of necessary resources e) Capacity-building; and f ) An accountable, transparent description of how

the management system functionsEffective management involves a cycle of long-term and day to day actions to protect, conserve and present the nominated property.

4.1.11 This section of the Operational Guidelines gives much greater clarity to the requirements of the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage Committee. In particular, it makes clear that the primary purpose of the management of a WHS is to protect and conserve the Site in order to sustain its OUV. This aligns with developing UK practice on values-led management of the historic environment as set out in English Heritage’s Conservation Principles (2008).

Monitoring the WHS

4.1.12 The 2008 Operational Guidelines contained further guidance on the ways in which the World Heritage Committee monitors the state of conservation of individual WHSs. There are two processes:

Reactive Monitoring is the process by which governments are asked to report significant changes or proposed developments to the World Heritage Committee. On the basis of these reports and of advice from the relevant Advisory Body to the Convention (ICOMOS International for a cultural site) and from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the Committee can offer advice to the relevant government. In very serious cases, the Committee can place a site on the World Heritage in Danger List, or if it is considered that its OUV has been lost, can remove it from the World Heritage List altogether

UNESCO Operational Guidelines, 2013


(see Operational Guidelines paras 169–198). Periodic Reporting is the process by which the

World Heritage Committee reviews all World Heritage Sites on a cyclical basis (see Operational Guidelines paras 199–201). This process was first carried out for Europe in 2004 and 2005. The second European round was completed in 2013. The Periodic Report for Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites provided a useful opportunity to review the overall state of both parts of the WHS. The next round of Periodic Reporting may fall within the lifetime of this Plan.


4.1.13 In July 2008 the World Heritage Committee agreed the Statement of Significance for Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS (Decision 32 COM 8B.93). The Statement was drawn up and agreed by the Steering Committees for both Stonehenge and Avebury based on the documentation submitted at the time of inscription and any comments made by evaluators. The Statement of Significance was included in the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan (2009) as a guide to how the Site should be protected and managed.

4.1.14 The 2005 revision of the Operational Guidelines (paras 154–5) introduced the requirement for a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Statements of OUV) for all new World Heritage Sites which became operational in 2007. Further to this, in 2007 the World Heritage Committee recognised the ‘pivotal importance of Statements of Outstanding Universal Value in all World Heritage processes’ and urged States Parties to prepare them for all WHSs inscribed prior to 2007 (Decision 31 COM 11D.1).

4.1.15 Statements of OUV are made up of several elements – brief description, Statement of Significance, Statement of Authenticity, Statement of Integrity and a section describing how the WHS is protected and managed as well as challenges in these areas. Statements of OUV are key references for the effective protection and management of WHSs, the main objective of which should be to sustain its OUV.

4.1.16 The original nomination and evaluation documents and the Statement of Significance agreed in 2008 formed the basis of the Statement of OUV for Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS. Following agreement by both Steering Committees and a period of public consultation the Statement of OUV was submitted to the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) in 2010. The draft Statement of OUV was submitted to

UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre in Paris in February 2011 and it was adopted at the 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee in Phnom Penh, Cambodia at the end of June 2013 (Decision 37 COM 8E). Issues and opportunities related to the UNESCO policy context are discussed in Part 2 Section 7.0 (Planning and Policy).

4.2 Planning and policy framework

Protection of the WHS

4.2.1 Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention requires States Parties to protect World Heritage Sites. In the UK, World Heritage Sites as a whole are protected primarily through the planning system. This system depends on a hierarchy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Local Plans which include Core Strategies and other relevant Development Planning Documents including Neighbourhood Plans. These documents set out policies according to which local authorities determine planning applications. It should be remembered that although the policy framework may have changed as discussed below, legal obligations remain in force, such as the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 which protects individual Scheduled Monuments within the Site through the Scheduled Monument consent system and the World Heritage Convention itself.

Changes in the planning system

4.2.2 There have been a substantial number of important changes to the planning system since the publication of the Avebury and Stonehenge Management Plans in 2005 and 2009 respectively. The Localism Act 2011 contained a wide range of measures including reforms to the planning system. It enabled many of these reforms to occur by making changes to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It also allowed for new secondary legislation to be introduced, such as The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

4.2.3 The main changes to the previous system are:

The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies The way new Local Plans are made The introduction of ‘Neighbourhood Planning’ to

enable local communities to shape and influence where they live or work by having a say in where new development should go


59

The introduction of a ‘duty to co-operate’, meaning neighbouring local authorities, or groups of authorities, must work together on planning issues where relevant.

4.2.4 Under the 2004 Act local planning authorities were required to have a Local Development Framework. The Government is streamlining the plan preparation process. Local planning authorities will now be required to have a Local Plan. As with Local Development Frameworks, Local Plans may be made up of a number of different Development Plan Documents (DPDs). Local planning authorities need prepare only one plan, and they can decide what it should contain. It must however consist of a Core Strategy which includes general development management policies. The local authority can choose to prepare other DPDs but must have a good reason to do so. These may include Neighbourhood Plans and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). SPDs cover a range of issues, both thematic and site specific, which may expand policy or provide further detail to policies in a development plan document. It is essential that SPDs are directly related policies in the Core Strategy.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2.5 The NPPF was published in March 2012. It replaces most of the existing national policy documents. It sets out the Government’s national planning policies and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

4.2.6 However, despite the apparent blanket presumption in favour of development, both the Courts and the Secretary of State have confirmed that due to footnote 9 of the NPPF this does not hold in some areas which include designated heritage assets, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. WHSs, as designated heritage assets, are therefore not subject to this presumption.

4.2.7 The NPPF recognises at para 132 that in considering

‘the impact of a proposed development on the significance, of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. It recognises that this is particularly important in relation to heritage assets such as World Heritage Sites which are described as designated heritage assets of the highest significance. ‘The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.’ The NPPF also states that not all elements of a World Heritage Sites contribute to its significance and that some development within these areas may be acceptable. In addition this recognises that inappropriate development within the setting of heritage assets has the potential to have a negative impact on their significance: an asset’s ‘significance can be harmed or lost through … development within its setting’.65 It states that developments that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

4.2.8 The Planning Circular 07/09 on the Protection of World Heritage Sites was revised to align with the NPPF in March 2014. The revised Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is entitled Further Guidance on World Heritage Sites and can be found on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Practice Guidance in the section Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.66

4.2.9 Despite these changes to the planning system a substantial number of key themes have been retained from Planning Policy Guidance and Statements under the previous system. The revised PPG retains most of the former advice and in addition articulates the relationship of the terminology used in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention to that in the NPPF. It clarifies that the concept of significance employed in the NPPF aligns with OUV:

‘…the description of the Outstanding Universal Value will be part of the World Heritage Site’s heritage significance and National Planning Policy Framework policies will apply to the Outstanding Universal Value as they do to any other heritage significance….’(para 031).

The NPPF encompasses the protection of the WHS and its attributes and components as defined for each WHS. At paragraph 029 it confirms that Statements of OUV are ‘key reference documents for the protection and management of each Site and can only be amended by the World Heritage Committee’.

4.2.10 Notably the NPPF PPG underlines the principles that need to be satisfied by policy frameworks at all

National Planning Policy Framework 2012


levels including Local Plan policies and in any decisions including: protecting the WHS and its setting from inappropriate development; striking a balance between the various other values associated with the WHS including its sustainable economic use; protecting the WHS from the cumulative impacts of minor changes; enhancing the WHS and its setting through positive management; and protecting the WHS from climate change but ensuring mitigation measures do not harm its integrity or authenticity. In addition the PPG advises on the appropriate content for a WHS management plan including long-term and day to day actions. A participatory approach to the plan’s development is advised and the need to adhere to the principles of sustainable development articulated.

Environmental Impact Assessment and

Heritage Impact Assessment

4.2.11 The general approach to assessing the impact of development is set out in the NPPF PPG. It requires that sufficient evidence is provided by developers to assess the impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This might include visual impact and other methods of assessment. Reference is made to the ICOMOS Heritage Impact Assessment Guidelines and English Heritage’s Setting Guidance (2011). To underpin this document Historic England has produced additional guidance: ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (2014). WHSs are considered sensitive areas for the purposes of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and therefore the threshold for which a full EIA is required is much lower and should be related to a development’s likelihood to have a harmful impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Any EIA should include a chapter on the heritage implication and this should use the ICOMOS Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) methodology. Where an EIA is not triggered a Design and Access statement is required at a lower threshold within a WHS. Additional WHS planning guidance will outline the necessary assessments required. This is discussed further in Part Two, Section 7.2 (Planning and Policy).

Developments likely to affect OUV

4.2.12 The PPG underlines that the World Heritage Committee Operational Guidelines ask governments ‘to inform it at an early stage of proposals that may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the Site’ before any decisions are made. Planning authorities should consult English Heritage in such a case at an early stage. Changes to the call-in procedures are discussed in more detail below at 4.4.5 below.

4.3 Relationship to other statutory and non-statutory management plans and strategies

4.3.1 The designation of the area as a WHS and the existence of the Management Plan are significant in terms of the protection they afford to an extensive area, helping to protect the future character and quality of the landscape and sustain its OUV. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan serves a different purpose from a number of other existing management, strategic and statutory plans which cover the WHS. These plans have been taken into account in the drafting of the current Plan which dovetails with and supports them.

4.3.2 Statutory plans include the Wiltshire Community Strategy 2011–2026; the Wiltshire Joint Strategic Assessment; the Amesbury Community Plan and the evolving Neighbourhood Plans at both Amesbury and Shrewton. In addition to these statutory Plans there are wide range of relevant strategic and management plans which include local Joint Strategic Assessments; the Green Infrastructure Strategy (Wiltshire Council), the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan (2014); the Integrated Rural Management Plan for the Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain (MoD/DE); the Natural England Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve Management Plan; the National Trust’s Land Use Plan (National Trust 2001); the National Trust’s Property Management Plan; the RSPB Normanton Down Management Plan (RSPB 2009); Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Strategy for Stone-curlew (RSPB 2008); Countryside Access Improvement Plan (Wiltshire Council 2014); Wiltshire Council Cycling Strategy 2011–2026; Marlborough Down Nature Improvement Area Plan. In addition there are various farm management and other privately produced plans that relate to land within the WHS and its setting. The most significant of these plans are discussed further at 7.3 in Section 7.0 (Planning Policy) alongside related issues and opportunities.

4.3.3 It is important that these plans take account of each other as far as is practicable, and that their major policies support the protection of the WHS.

4.4 Legal protection of the WHS

Heritage Protection Bill

4.4.1 The Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 discussed the proposed reform of the Heritage Protection


61

System in England set out in the White Paper on Heritage Protection in the 21st Century published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in March 2007. The Bill was not included in the legislative programme for 2009 as expected due to the global financial crisis and not taken forward by the Coalition Government of 2010.

4.4.2 Although all of its provisions have not been realised in a single Bill, a number of them have been enacted through changes in the planning system and other legislation. Although WHSs are not formally recognised as statutory designations they are now included alongside them in the category of most highly designated assets to which harm should be ‘wholly exceptional’ (NPPF para 132).

Heritage Partnership Agreements

4.4.3 The concept of Heritage Partnership Agreements included in the Bill came into force in April 2014 but this was limited to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas rather than Scheduled Monuments. As such they are only indirectly relevant to the protection and management of the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

4.4.4 The original White paper also announced three changes to planning policy advice. These were a change to call-in regulations and the inclusion of WHSs in Article 1(5) Land in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). The development of a new planning circular was proposed which would further recognise in national policy the need to protect WHSs as sites of OUV, and to make more prominent the need to create a management plan for each WHS, and where needed, delineate a buffer zone.

Call-in Regulations

4.4.5 The Call-in Regulations were published in the Communities and Local Government Circular 02/2009 and came into force in April 2009. Changes to the call-in procedures require local authorities to inform the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if they are minded to grant permission for a development in the WHS or its setting ‘to which English Heritage maintains an objection and which would have an adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance of a World Heritage Site or its setting’.

WHS Article 1(5) Land

4.4.6 From 1 October 2008 changes to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) extended the protection afforded to AONBs, National Parks and other protected areas to WHSs through their re-categorisation as Article 1(5) land. Previously this applied only to Avebury which was within the North Wessex Downs AONB. It now applies to the whole of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. Article 1(5) of the GPDO restricts certain permitted development rights within areas it covers. It restricts the size of extensions to houses and industrial buildings which can be built without specific planning consent. It also covers matters such as cladding of buildings.

Article 4

4.4.7 The current Stonehenge Article 4 Direction Area places height restrictions on permitted development rights for buildings related to agricultural and forestry operations within an area of seven and a half square miles around the Stonehenge monument. The Direction has been in place since 1962, originally made under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1950 (now Article 4 of the 1995 Order). At Avebury there are two Article 4 Directions in place. The first relates to development of land surrounding Avebury Manor and was put in place in 1988. The second put in place in 2009, removes the permitted rights related to fencing in the open countryside around the former BT Repeater Station below Overton Hill. Details of the Article 4 Directions are at Appendix I.

4.4.8 In addition to the Article 4 directions a Concordat has been in place since 1970 between the MOD and Ministry of Public Works on the Future of Building Work at Larkhill. This Concordat stipulated that there will be no development south of the Packway within the WHS. This can be found at Appendix J.

West Kennet Long Barrow interior

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


Environmental Impact Assessment Sensitive Area

4.4.9 WHSs have a specific status with regard to EIAs. They are included within Schedule 2 for sensitive areas of the EIA regulations along with designations including AONBs. This means that EIAs for development proposals within WHSs should consider the impact of the proposal on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Location within the WHS should also be a matter taken into account by local authorities when screening development proposals for the need for EIA. The Forestry Commission operates a separate system of EIA for all proposals for afforestation and deforestation within WHSs if they might have a significant environmental impact.

Design and Access Statements

4.4.10 Development proposals within WHSs require Design and Access Statements.

4.4.11 Taken as a whole the changes in national planning policy and advice relating to WHSs should have a significant impact on the procedures for the protection of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. It is important that curators and managers are aware of these changes.

4.5 English Heritage Conservation Principles

4.5.1 English Heritage’s Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage 2008)67 recognises four values related to heritage: Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal. The main purpose is to strengthen the credibility and consistency of decisions taken and advice given by English Heritage staff. Since English Heritage is the Government’s principal adviser on the conservation of the historic environment, including the application of the World Heritage Convention, the Principles are of importance in shaping English Heritage’s future involvement in the values based management of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

Conservation

4.5.2 The Principles define ‘Conservation’ as the process of managing change to a ‘significant place’ and its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations. At the highest level they are defined in the following six statements:

1. The historic environment is a shared resource. 2. Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining

the historic environment. 3. Understanding the significance of places is vital. 4. Significant places should be managed to sustain their

values. 5. Decisions about change must be reasonable,

transparent and consistent. 6. Documenting and learning from decisions is

essential.

Historic England

4.5.3 These principles will continue to inform the involvement of Historic England which will take on the statutory element of the English Heritage role once the proposed New Model for English Heritage is put in place on 1 April 2015.

4.6 Historic environment designations

See Maps 7 and 18 – Heritage designations for

Stonehenge and Avebury

4.6.1 The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites

World Heritage Site was placed on the World Heritage List in 1986.

4.6.2 Scheduled Monuments are monuments and sites included on a Schedule in accordance with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) which recognises the national importance of such monuments. Scheduled monuments are afforded statutory protection and require Scheduled Monument Consent for works affecting them. There are 180 Scheduled Monuments within the Stonehenge part of the WHS and 74 in Avebury.

4.6.3 Guardianship Sites under the 1979 Act for nationally important monuments and adjoining land have been taken into the care and/or ownership of the State (or nation). Stonehenge, Woodhenge and parts of Durrington Walls are in Guardianship. English Heritage manages these sites on behalf of the State. At Avebury, Avebury Henge and Stone Circle, West Kennet Avenue, the Sanctuary, West Kennet Long Barrow, Windmill Hill and Silbury Hill are in Guardianship. These monuments (except for Silbury Hill) are managed by the National Trust on behalf of English Heritage. In addition, the Stables Gallery of the Alexander Keiller Museum and its collection is in the guardianship of the State and managed by the National Trust.


63

4.6.4 Conservation Areas are areas of special local or regional architectural or historic interest and character. The designation, preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas are the responsibility of the local planning authority. Conservation Area status recognises the importance of collections of historic buildings and their settings as critical assets of our cultural heritage which should be conserved for future generations. The following Conservation Areas lie either partly or wholly within the WHS: Amesbury, West Amesbury, Wilsford cum Lake at Stonehenge; and at Avebury the villages of Avebury including part of Avebury Trusloe and West Kennett.

4.6.5 Listed Buildings are buildings of special architectural or historic interest designated by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Listed Buildings are afforded statutory protection, and are classified in grades (Grades I, II* and II) according to their relative importance. Any works must be authorised via an application for listed building consent (LBC) made to the local planning authority. There are 84 Listed Buildings within the WHS in Avebury. Many buildings within Conservation Areas along the Woodford Valley in the Stonehenge part of the WHS are listed, as are some milestones.

4.6.6 Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest are included on a Register compiled by English Heritage to draw attention to the importance of these as an essential part of the nation’s heritage. Two such parks lie within the WHS: Amesbury Abbey, a Grade II* historic park and garden, and Lake House at Wilsford cum Lake, a Grade II historic park and garden. This status does not currently provide any form of statutory protection; however, the local planning authority will encourage the conservation, restoration and maintenance of historic parks and gardens within the Plan area, and ‘registered status’ is a material consideration within the planning process.

4.6.7 The Stonehenge Regulations 1997. Under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, these regulations set out prohibited acts, such as climbing on the Stones and accessing the monument without the permission of English Heritage. The full regulations are set out in Appendix M.

4.7 Landscape and nature conservation designations

See Maps 8 and 19 – Landscape and nature conservation

designations

4.7.1 North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB) was designated in 1972 by the Countryside Commission (now Natural England) under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The AONB designation confers formal recognition by the Government that the natural beauty of the landscape in the area identified is of national importance. The Avebury WHS lies wholly within the North Wessex Downs AONB.

4.7.2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are designated by Natural England (formerly English Nature) under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to protect features of national importance for nature conservation. At Stonehenge the WHS is bordered by the River Avon System SSSI on its eastern side while three high profile calcareous grassland sites: Parsonage Down, Porton Down and Salisbury Plain SSSI lie to the west, east and immediately north respectively. At Avebury, Fyfield Down and Silbury Hill are both designated as SSSI. Fyfield Down and Parsonage Down are also designated as National Nature Reserves

(NNRs) and managed by Natural England. Fyfield

Avebury Manor and Stables beside St James Church

© N

MR

1540

3_01

7 C

row

n C

opyr

ight

His

tori

c En

glan

d

The Chinese summerhouse is part of Amesbury Abbey’s park and garden created in the 18th century

© P

eter

Goo

dhug

h


Down is managed in partnership with the landowner who is responsible for the management required under the HLS agreement.

4.7.3 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive,68 which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species. Salisbury Plain SSSI has been designated as an SPA for its populations of quail, hobby, hen harrier and stone-curlew.

4.7.4 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are strictly protected sites designated under the EC Habitats Directive. Article 3 of the Habitats Directive requires the establishment of a European network of important high-quality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive (as amended). The listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (excluding birds). Salisbury Plain SSSI has been designated as an SAC for its calcareous grassland, juniper scrub and populations of marsh fritillary butterfly. The River Avon and its tributaries together form the River Avon SAC which is designated for four species of fish including salmon, Desmoulin’s whorl snail, water crowfoot and other specialist aquatic vegetation.

4.7.5 The Wiltshire Biodiversity Action Plan (2008) and A Landscape-scale Framework for Conservation in Wiltshire and Swindon (2012) identify action for conserving and enhancing habitats and species which are listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 as being of principal importance for the conservation of nature. The WHS contains many fragments and some larger areas of

such habitats and the Wildlife Sites Partnership has recognised many of these as County Wildlife Sites. Although surveys are not comprehensive, the WHS also contains several species of principal importance. These sites, species and habitats are recognised and protected in the Wiltshire Core Strategy and links can also be made to saved policies in the Salisbury and Kennet District Local Plans. Earlier versions of the WHS Management Plans recognised Areas of High Ecological Value (AHEV) but this designation has been superseded by the more recent national policy outlined here.

4.7.6 The Special Landscape Area policy has its roots in the early 1980s and was inherited by the District Councils from the now defunct Structure Plan. It recognises that there are areas of attractive and vulnerable landscape within Wiltshire that do not benefit from statutory designation, including Salisbury Plain and Stonehenge. At the time of writing the SLA policy is saved but subject to a review.

4.7.7 As part of the Wiltshire Wildlife Sites Survey and Nature Conservation Strategy, a database of sites of potential county nature conservation interest was

Nature conservation and enhancing biodiversity: Lapwing, Common Blue Butterfly, Pyramidal Orchid

© N

atur

al E

ngla

nd, ©

Chr

is G

omer

sal,

RSP

B-im

ages

.com

The River Avon is designated as a Special Area of Conservation

Mar

tin Ja

mes

200

5 ©

Nat

ural

Eng

land


65

compiled by English Nature (now Natural England) and the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. These sites were also referred to within the District Council Local Plan, and it is anticipated that this protection will be included in the new Local Area Agreements within the revised planning system. There are six County Wildlife Sites within the Stonehenge WHS and eight in the Avebury WHS which are under active management.

4.7.8 Marlborough Downs Nature Improvement

Area – The Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (2011) enabled the setting up of partnerships between local authorities, local communities and landowners, the private sector and conservation organisations to establish new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), based on a local assessment of opportunities for restoring and connecting nature on a significant scale. Marlborough Downs NIA was one of England’s first twelve NIAs and initiated on 1 April 2012 for a period of three years. Marlborough Downs NIA is unique in that it is has been designed solely by farmers. It is believed that this farmer-led, bottom-up approach will lead to far greater and more wide-reaching benefits as a result of the ‘ownership’ conferred by this project. An initial survey of farmers has confirmed an extremely high level of commitment.

5.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CONTEXT

5.1 Developments since the 2005 and 2009 Management Plans

5.1.1 Since the Avebury 2005 and Stonehenge 2009 plans there have been a number of major changes in the management context of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. Until 2014 the two parts of the WHS were managed to a large extent independently and each had its own Management Plan. Despite this, a number of joint initiatives were completed and the Stonehenge WHS Coordinator and Avebury WHS Officer worked closely together. In many cases the same members of staff from WHS partner organisations such as English Heritage, the National Trust and Natural England were involved at both Stonehenge and Avebury.

5.2 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS governance review

5.2.1 In 2011 the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Committees agreed to undertake a review of the

governance across both parts of the WHS. There were three main drivers for this review. First, UNESCO in its Operational Guidelines recommends that in ‘the case of serial properties, a management system or mechanisms for ensuring the co-ordinated management of the separate components are essential ….’69 Secondly, there was a need to consider how recent changes in the management context, such as the formation of the Wiltshire Council Unitary Authority in 2009 and the introduction of a General Manager of Wiltshire Countryside managing both parts of the National Trust property within the WHS, might affect its management. Thirdly, there was an impetus to identify the most efficient way of working following the downturn sparked by the global economic crisis in 2007 and consequent cuts in public sector funding.

5.2.2 These drivers created a desire to look at the governance, coordination and management of the World Heritage Site to create a more streamlined arrangement that avoided duplication for the Coordinators and those organisations involved in both parts of the WHS. It was therefore agreed by the local Steering Committees in 2011 to undertake a review of the governance structure of the WHS which would consider opportunities for a joint approach to coordination and management of the WHS.

5.2.3 In 2012 Egeria Heritage Consulting began the governance review and produced recommendations for a more coordinated approach. The report concluded that in general the current arrangements worked well and any new ones should seek to maintain the excellent partnership working and coordination demonstrated up until that point. Egeria Heritage Consulting’s main recommendations70 were as follows:

The two parts of the WHS should have an overarching Committee made up of the three main funders (NT, EH and Wiltshire Council) together with local representatives

This committee should have an Independent Chair The Steering Committees at Stonehenge and

Avebury should be maintained to ensure that the local engagement which has been so successful continues

The two Coordinators should work together on a formal basis as a WHS Coordination Unit hosted by one partner and supported financially and in kind by the other key partners. A minimum of 2.5 staff were recommended to undertake the work of the Coordination Unit.


5.2.4 Both local Steering Committees broadly agreed with these recommendations and in the autumn of 2012 a working group consisting of members of these committees was formed to consider how best to implement them. The recommendations were further refined after discussions with the local Committees and terms of reference were developed. These can be found at Appendix A.

5.2.5 The diagram below was developed as a result of the deliberations of the working group and reflects the relationships between the local Steering Committees, Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) and the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel.

5.3 The local Steering Committees

5.3.1 The membership of the two local Steering Committees includes employees of the main WHS partner organisations responsible for aspects of management and representatives of local communities and amenity groups. A list of members can be found at Appendix A

Stonehenge

5.3.2 The Stonehenge WHS Committee was formed in December 2000 from the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan Implementation Group. It meets every four months to oversee the implementation of the Management Plan and to take decisions on priorities, strategies and funding. It is composed of key partners with responsibilities for planning and land management in the WHS, including key landowners, local authorities and statutory agencies. The Stonehenge WHS Committee was chaired until 2014 by Lady Elizabeth Gass who had been both a Commissioner of English Heritage and a member of the National Trust Wessex Committee.

5.3.3 As a result of the governance review of 2012 a revision of the membership was undertaken. This resulted in an increase in local parish councils represented and the inclusion of the Amesbury Society amenity group. A full list of membership can be found at Appendix A. In addition a new Chairman was nominated by the members in 2014 for a period of three years. The role is currently held by the representative of Amesbury Town Council.

Governance structure diagram


67

5.3.4 The Stonehenge WHS Advisory Forum was created in 2001 as a wider consultative group. It was composed of all the bodies and individuals who took part in the preparation of the original 2000 Management Plan along with various others. Its role was to provide advice on the management of the WHS, including the periodic revision of the Management Plan, and to act as a channel of communication between those carrying out work in the WHS and the wider stakeholder group. The Forum generally met once a year and more often when needed. The governance review recommended that some members were invited to join the Stonehenge WHS Steering Committee and that the remaining members joined a wider stakeholder group for both parts of the WHS. This wider stakeholder group was consulted during the development of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan at a series of three workshops.

Avebury

5.3.5 The Avebury WHS Steering Committee was formed in 1999 from a Working Party which met from 1989 to oversee the development of the first Management Plan. Its membership mirrors that at Stonehenge and includes representatives from bodies with statutory functions within the WHS as well as landowners and managers, three parish councils and local amenity societies. A full list of membership can be found at Appendix A. Until 2014 it was chaired by the English Heritage South West Regional Director and latterly by its Planning and Conservation Director.

5.3.6 Avebury until recently had two sub-groups established in 1992 and 1993 respectively to deal with archaeological and historical research (AAHRG) and traffic and visitor management (TVM). AAHRG was an informal group of academics and archaeologists who met to coordinate and encourage research within the WHS and who produced the Avebury WHS Research Agenda in 2001. The TVM Group met three to four times a year and was chaired by the National Trust.

5.3.7 Following the governance review a new Chair of the Steering Committee was nominated in 2014 and the position is currently held by the Chair of Avebury Parish Council. This is for a period of three years. The TVM group has been replaced with an agreement to establish ‘task and finish’ groups to take forward individual projects.

5.4 Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

5.4.1 The Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) was formed in 2014. It developed from the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG) which was formed in 1992. This change fulfils a long held ambition to establish a Stonehenge research group and was a recommendation of the governance review. ASAHRG is an informal group of academics, archaeologists and historians who meet to coordinate and promote research with the WHS and oversee the update of the WHS Research Framework. They issued revised Terms of Reference in 2014 (see Appendix C). The role of the group is discussed in greater detail in Part Two, Section 12.0 (Research).

5.5 The WHS Coordination Unit

5.5.1 The Stonehenge WHS Coordinator is employed by English Heritage. The Avebury WHS Officer is employed by Wiltshire Council. From March 2014 the Stonehenge Coordinator was seconded to Wiltshire Council to form the WHS Coordination Unit with the Avebury WHS Officer. The Unit is based in the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre in Chippenham with the County Archaeology Service housed within the Heritage and Arts Team of Wiltshire Council.

5.5.2 The role of the two Coordinators is to manage the programme set out in the Management Plan and facilitate the delivery of the actions, working closely with the many stakeholders involved in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. In addition the Coordinators lead on the review and update of the Plan. They work across both parts of the WHS, each responsible for specific themes such as planning or education. The role of the Coordination Unit is set out in Appendix D. The Unit is

The last meeting of AAHRG in October 2013 before its expansion to include Stonehenge and become ASAHRG in 2014

© B

rian

Edw

ards


currently made up of two full-time WHS Coordinators. The National Trust’s Stonehenge and Avebury Archaeologist provides additional advice and support to the Unit.

5.5.3 With greater resources the work of the Coordination Unit could be expanded and opportunities to increase the capacity of the Unit with appropriate paid or volunteer support should be considered. This might include administrative support, social media, fund raising, grant applications and events assistance.

5.6 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel

5.6.1 The WHS Partnership Panel first met in February 2014. The role of the Partnership Panel is to coordinate actions affecting both parts of the WHS and to oversee the work of the Coordination Unit. An important role for this group is to ensure sufficient funds are available to support the Coordination Unit and implement projects arising from the Management Plan. It is led by an Independent Chair.

5.6.2 This group represents both parts of the WHS and is made up of three key partners (English Heritage, the National Trust and Wiltshire Council), the chairs of the two local Steering Committees and a representative from ASAHRG. The secretariat is carried out by the Coordination Unit and both Coordinators attend together with the National Trust WHS Archaeologist to report to the Partnership Panel and respond to any queries.

5.7 Chair of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel

5.7.1 The role of the Independent Chair of the WHS Partnership Panel is to chair the Partnership Panel meetings, champion the WHS and raise awareness and understanding of its OUV. The Independent Chair was appointed in November 2013 for a period of three years. The role of the Chair can be found at Appendix B.

5.8 Working groups and liaison with key partners

5.8.1 A number of small and informal working groups have been set up to progress specific projects and foster partnership between the stakeholders. These groups help to build consensus and ownership of projects

while making effective use of the expertise, skills and experience of partners to achieve exemplary and innovative management outcomes. Since the production of the last Plans, working or ‘task and finish’ groups have been set up to oversee and advise on the implementation of a number of projects including the WHS Condition Survey, the WHS Woodland Strategy, the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework and the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy. These groups normally report through the relevant WHS Coordinator or another member of the group to the local Steering Committee. The group is disbanded on the completion of the project. Further consultation on projects is carried out when relevant through informal individual meetings with partners, the circulation of drafts for comment, presentations to other groups and other appropriate methods.

5.8.2 In addition, the WHS Coordination Unit maintains a close working relationship with key partners through regular meetings or informal contact. A regular monthly liaison meeting is held with Historic England, the National Trust and Wiltshire Council.

5.9 Funding arrangements for the WHS Coordination Unit

Stonehenge

5.9.1 Funding for the Stonehenge Curatorial Unit following its creation in 2001, was mostly provided by English Heritage. In past years there have been additional smaller contributions from the National Trust, Salisbury District Council and from Amesbury Town Council. However, since 2009 funding has been provided by English Heritage alone. This covered the salary costs of a full-time Coordinator and a part-time administrative assistant until 2011 when the part-time assistant role was made redundant. The Unit which consisted of an additional full-time archaeologist and research assistant post was funded by English Heritage until 2011. Currently English Heritage funds the Stonehenge Coordinator post which has been seconded to the Coordination Unit based in Wiltshire Council. It also provides a small additional budget for projects. This role is now associated with Historic England.

Avebury

5.9.2 The post of Avebury WHS Officer was part-funded by English Heritage and Kennet District Council until 2009. The post was transferred to Wiltshire Council in 2009. The Council now funds the salary costs of the Officer and provides a small budget for projects.


69

WHS Coordination Unit funding

5.9.3 The WHS Coordination Unit was formed in March 2014 and is hosted by the Archaeology Service of Wiltshire Council at the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre. Wiltshire Council provides accommodation, administrative support and day to day management support.

Project funding

5.9.4 Funding has also been obtained by previous and current WHS Coordinators for specific projects from a variety of sources including Natural England/Defra (grassland reversion, Woodland Strategy and capital items to protect archaeological features); English Heritage (Silbury Hill Conservation Project, WHS Condition Surveys, revised WHS Research Framework, archaeological surveys and aerial photography); and Wiltshire Council and North Wessex Downs AONB (Avebury WHS Transport Strategy). In addition, many projects are carried out directly by the various WHS partners such as the National Trust and RSPB. Substantial private sector funding has also been obtained for the undergrounding by Scottish and Southern Electricity of intrusive electricity cables in the Avebury part of the WHS.

5.10 Ownership and management roles

See Maps 6 and 17 – Land ownership

5.10.1 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is characterised by diversity of ownership, management agencies and land use. The WHS boundary includes a number of different farm estates and land holdings. No one organisation is entirely responsible for the management of the WHS. The key organisations and individuals with ownership and statutory responsibility manage the WHS through the governance structure outlined above coordinated by the WHS Coordination Unit.

5.10.2 Several government departments, agencies and other public bodies have statutory or management responsibilities in the WHS. These are set out in Appendix F, List A. There are likely to be changes to this range of bodies during the lifetime of this Plan.

Stonehenge

5.10.3 Much of the Stonehenge part of the WHS is now owned or managed by conservation bodies although no single body has responsibility for the whole Site. The majority of the land is used for farming, including areas

predominantly cultivated regularly for arable crops, and is therefore subject to the macro-economic influences of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. Smaller parts are managed for conservation and public access while the northern part of the site is part of the Ministry of Defence Estate.

5.10.4 Stonehenge and 15 hectares of land around it were given to the nation in 1918 by the last private owner, Cecil Chubb, and are now in the freehold ownership of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. They are managed on the Secretary of State’s behalf by English Heritage. English Heritage also has in care Woodhenge and a very small part of the Durrington henge; these are sites in state guardianship.

5.10.5 In 1927, 587 hectares of the surrounding land (about a fifth of the Stonehenge part of the WHS) were purchased by public subscription through the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society and vested in the National Trust following a national public appeal. More recently, the National Trust has made a series of sizeable acquisitions within the WHS: 172 hectares at Countess Farm in 1999, a large part of Durrington Walls in 2001 and, in 2003, land at Greenland Farm including the Lesser Cursus. The National Trust now owns a total of 827 hectares.

5.10.6 Apart from the land in the care of English Heritage, that owned by the National Trust, and Larkhill and the surrounding farmland owned by the Ministry of Defence, the majority of the WHS is owned by six private owners and is used for farming. At Amesbury, Durrington and along the Woodford Valley, there are a number of private houses within the WHS boundary. A further development since 2000 has been the Management Agreement between a private landowner and the RSPB regarding land adjoining, and including some of, the Normanton Down Barrow Group to establish a chalk grassland nature reserve to protect breeding and roosting stone-curlews.

5.10.7 The visitor facilities at Stonehenge are owned and operated by English Heritage on land to the west of Stonehenge at the junction of the A360 and B3086 leased from the Druids Lodge Estate and Manor Farm. This includes the new Visitor Centre housing an exhibition, café, education facility and shop and a car and coach park, alongside an ancillary building for offices and services.


Avebury

5.10.8 At Avebury, the National Trust is the largest single owner in the WHS owning around one third of the area or approximately 647 hectares much of which it acquired in 1943 from Alexander Keiller. Much of this land is farmland and let on secure Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies and is therefore not managed in hand by the Trust. There are around 15 different farm estates and land holdings within the WHS. Fyfield Down is a National Nature Reserve leased from the landowner and managed by Natural England. In addition there are a large number of individual householders within the Avebury WHS, mostly concentrated in the settlements of Avebury, Avebury Trusloe, Beckhampton and West Kennett.

5.10.9 The responsibilities of English Heritage and the National Trust are closely interlinked at Avebury. Six prehistoric sites and the Alexander Keiller Museum and much of its collection are in the Guardianship of the State. However, since 1994 the prehistoric sites, apart from Silbury Hill, have been managed on a day to day basis by the National Trust through a Local Management Agreement (LMA) with English Heritage. The Alexander Keiller Museum and much of its collection are owned by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and are managed under a 25-year LMA. This will need to be renegotiated during the lifetime of this current Management Plan. These two LMAs ensure the continued protection and conservation of key attributes of OUV and the internationally important collection. The current regime has been working well and regular liaison meetings ensure good cooperation and monitoring of conservation works taking place at Avebury.

5.11 The Local Authority

5.11.1 In 2009 a unitary authority, Wiltshire Council, was established replacing the County Council and the five district councils including Kennet District Council and Salisbury District Council which were the district councils in which Avebury and Stonehenge are situated. The Avebury WHS Officer, previously jointly funded by Kennet District Council and English Heritage, is now funded by Wiltshire Council. Following the governance review, Wiltshire Council has agreed to host the WHS Coordination Unit which is now based at the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre in Chippenham in the County Archaeology Service in the Heritage and Arts Team.

5.11.2 Wiltshire Council plays an extremely important role in a number of areas affecting the protection and management of the WHS. As the local planning

authority the Council prepares planning policy including the Wiltshire Core Strategy and implements this through development management. Wiltshire Council is the highways and traffic authority for the County and as such responsible for the public vehicular highways and public rights of way contained within the WHS (the Highways Agency is responsible for the A303 which is a national strategic road). The County Archaeology Service gives advice on the protection of the historic environment and maintains the Historic Environment Record. In addition the Council supports VisitWiltshire, the destination management organisation responsible for the marketing of Wiltshire as a tourism destination as well as a wide range of museums and heritage and arts organisations. The Arts Service is responsible for arts development across the County and the Museums Advisory Service gives both direct and indirect assistance to local museums.

5.11.3 Wiltshire Council uses Community Area Boards as means of enabling local decision making. They are a formal part of Wiltshire Council that tries to find solutions for local issues such as road repairs, traffic problems and speeding in villages, litter, facilities for young people and affordable housing. People who work with the area boards include councillors, community area managers and democratic service officers together with one member of the council’s top decision-making committee, the Cabinet. It also includes the local NHS, fire and emergency services, police, town and parish councils, community area partnerships and many other groups. By working in partnership with local communities, the Council hopes to achieve more than it can on its own. A representative of each Board sits on the relevant local WHS Steering Committee.

5.11.4 Wiltshire Council is responsible for a small area of land at Durrington Walls and for the Larkhill Primary School Site.

5.11.5 Council members represent their communities on the local WHS Steering Committees and the Cabinet Member for Heritage and Arts represents Wiltshire Council on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel.


71

5.12 Historic England

5.12.1 Historic England came into being as a non-departmental government body grant-aided by DCMS in April 2015. Until then it had been part of English Heritage which came into being in 1984 under the terms of the 1983 National Heritage Act. Under the direction of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, it is the main advisory body to the Government on all matters concerning the conservation of England’s historic environment including WHSs. Through a range of identification work, grant programmes and advice, Historic England seeks to ensure the protection and enjoyment of cultural heritage. The statutory function is retained as a non-departmental government body grant-aided by DCMS and known as Historic England. It has been instrumental in developing management plans for all cultural WHSs in England.

5.12.2 Historic England has the following role:

Curatorial: advising Government on the designation of heritage assets of national importance, for example the addition of assets to the schedule of monuments; advising Government and local authorities on applications for Scheduled Monument consent, planning consent, listed building and Conservation Area consent and other planning and development proposals including those affecting WHSs, registered historic parks and gardens and battlefields, and also providing pre-application advice to owners and developers; and support to owners of heritage assets. This role is carried out by the Inspector of Ancient Monuments (IAM) based at the English Heritage South West Office in Bristol. The IAM is supported by a number of other colleagues working within the National Planning and Conservation Group of Historic England.

World Heritage: acting as the Government’s official advisor on matters relating to the World Heritage Convention.

World Heritage Site Management Plan: supporting the work of the WHS Coordination Unit which coordinates the implementation and periodic revision of the World Heritage Site Management Plan. Until 2014 the Stonehenge WHS Coordinator was based within the Stonehenge management team.

5.12.3 The Planning and Conservation Director (South West) of Historic England currently represents the organisation on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel.

5.13 English Heritage

5.13.1 English Heritage came into being in 1984 under the terms of the 1983 National Heritage Act. In April 2015, some of its functions were transferred to a new body, Historic England. A new charity was formed which retained the name English Heritage and its responsibility for the conservation, documentation and interpretation of 420 historic properties and 500,000 objects in their collections. The new charity remains under the direction of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

5.13.2 English Heritage is responsible for the national heritage collections in the care and guardianship of the Secretary of State. These include 420 sites and monuments with their collections and archives. The areas of responsibility include: curation; conservation and maintenance; presentation; education; interpretation; access programmes; development; property investment; historic properties; commercial activities; collections care; fundraising and marketing.

5.13.3 Specifically for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS, its areas of responsibility are:

Conservation: English Heritage (EH) is responsible for the conservation and long-term guardianship of Stonehenge and part of the Avenue, Woodhenge, and part of Durrington Walls. Similarly at Avebury EH is responsible for Avebury Henge and Stone Circle, West Kennet Avenue, West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Windmill Hill, Silbury Hill and the Alexander Keiller Museum. The Property Curator advises on all conservation issues at Stonehenge in conjunction with the Landscape Manager, the Conservation Maintenance Manger and the Facilities Manager. Similarly at the Avebury sites EH is responsible for major conservation projects while the general maintenance is carried out by the National Trust (see below). The Senior Collections Curator is responsible for the collections relating to the sites held by EH. The Property Curator is responsible for the Conservation Plan which informs the sustainable management of the site.Development: in partnership with Government, public bodies and the National Trust, delivering the Stonehenge Environmental Improvement


Programme. This included the new Visitor Centre and the closure of the A344 from the junction with the A303 to the Roundabout on the A360. The team is based in Bristol and Stonehenge. Operations: managing the guardianship sites on behalf of Government. At Stonehenge, these consist of Stonehenge and Woodhenge (together with a small part of Durrington Walls). The Operations team is based on site. At Avebury, there are six sites (Avebury Henge and Stone Circle, West Kennet Avenue, West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Windmill Hill and Silbury Hill) and the Alexander Keiller Museum. All (with the exception of Silbury Hill) are managed by the National Trust for English Heritage through Local Management Agreements.

5.13.4 The General Manager of Stonehenge currently sits on the Stonehenge WHS Steering Committee.

5.14 The National Trust

5.14.1 As one of the largest landowners within the WHS, the National Trust is an important organisation for delivering and influencing improvements to the Site through its management activities. The National Trust was founded in 1895, and was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1907 (the National Trust Act 1907) to promote ‘the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as practicable) of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life’. Within the WHS, the National Trust’s main areas of responsibility are:

Cultural Heritage: the National Trust cares for a wide range of prehistoric monuments and sites as well as more recent archaeology

Natural Heritage: around 112 hectares of arable land have been reverted to species-rich grassland

Landscape: the National Trust manages its land at Stonehenge and Avebury to conserve a landscape in which a wide range of monuments and sites can be interpreted and appreciated.

5.14.2 A key aspect of the 1907 Act is that land placed under the National Trust’s ownership can be declared ‘inalienable’. This is the case for virtually all of the Trust’s estate within the WHS, which cannot be disposed of by the National Trust except through special parliamentary procedure. It therefore presents a very long-term and unique contribution to the preservation and integrity of the monuments and their landscape setting.

5.14.3 One of the key changes since 2005 and 2009 is the reorganisation of the National Trust at local level so that the Trust land in both parts of the WHS is managed by its General Manager of Wiltshire Landscape. This provides for the first time an integrated approach to the management of both parts of the WHS. The National Trust General Manager (Wiltshire Landscape) represents the organisation on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel.

5.14.4 The National Trust employs a full-time archaeologist for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS and from 2014 this role was expanded to enable the National Trust to support the WHS Coordination Unit. The National Trust employs a full-time curator for the Alexander Keiller Museum.

5.14.5 The National Trust employs a team that includes a ranger team at both Avebury and Stonehenge, a Visitor Experience Officer for the Stonehenge Landscape and a Visitor Services team, a Museum Curator and Curatorial Assistant at Avebury, all of whom work together to deliver a wide range of events and to conserve and protect the National Trust estate.

5.15 Natural England

5.15.1 Natural England contributes very significantly to the protection, presentation and management of the WHS. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 created Natural England and brought together, for the first time in one body, the protection of wildlife and landscapes and the enjoyment and environmental education of people. Natural England is the government’s adviser on the natural environment whose remit is to ensure sustainable stewardship of the land and sea so that people and nature can thrive and that England’s rich natural environment can adapt and survive intact for future generations to enjoy. Natural England’s responsibilities that relate to the WHS and the aims of its Management Plan include:

Managing England’s green farming schemes/agri-environment agreements

Promoting nature conservation and reversing the decline of biodiversity. Working with partners to deliver Biodiversity 2020 objectives and landscape-scale integrated conservation

Managing National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Working with landowners and land managers to

maintain SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition Promoting and supporting more access to and

engagement with the environment


73

Providing advice to planners and developers to ensure the natural environment is conserved and enhanced through the planning system

Advising on wildlife management and licensing especially in relation to the protection of Scheduled Monuments and burrowing animals.

5.15.2 Perhaps the key role for the WHS is their management of the green farming or agri-environment schemes that have helped protect sensitive archaeology from damage through cultivation. This will remain a key priority for the WHS for the foreseeable future. This is discussed further below at 5.22 below. Natural England has also provided support funding and support for landscape-scale projects such as the WHS Woodland Strategy (2015).

5.15.3 Natural England manages the Fyfield Down NNR and is responsible for SSSIs in both parts of the WHS. It is represented on both local Steering Committees.

5.16 North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

5.16.1 The Avebury part of the WHS lies completely within the North Wessex Downs AONB. This is a nationally protected landscape, designated in 1972 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and recognised also as a Category V landscape by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The AONB is a key partner with many similar aims to the WHS. The primary purposes of the AONB designation are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. This includes the historical and cultural associations as well as geological and physical characteristics of the area, the flora and the fauna and the scenic views. Under s.85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, all ‘relevant authorities’ have a statutory duty to have regard for these purposes. The Act also requires the nine local authorities concerned to produce and implement statutory AONB Management Plans. An AONB staff unit leads this work on behalf of the governing North Wessex Downs AONB Partnership. The NWDAONB provides an additional layer of statutory protection for the WHS as well as support through working in partnership and the provision of funding for relevant projects. The NWDAONB provided 50% of the funding for the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy and supported the production of the Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack. The Director of the NWDAONB is a member of the Avebury local Steering Committee.

5.17 The military

5.17.1 The north of the Stonehenge WHS includes a large part of Larkhill Garrison and is part of the Army Training Estate, Salisbury Plain. The Army was originally drawn to the Salisbury Plain over a hundred years ago by the expanse of lightly settled chalk downland and one of the largest unpopulated areas in the country, thereby providing a suitable tract of land for military training. The residents of Larkhill form the largest population group within the WHS and some former Army houses are now privately owned. Many of the local communities depend economically on the presence of the military sites in the area.

5.17.2 The Larkhill Garrison has seen significant and sustained investment by the army over a considerable period. The Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Army Basing 2020 programme is currently underway.71 This aims to relocate troops currently stationed in Germany back to the UK by 2020. The Salisbury Plain Training Area is earmarked for around 4,300 additional troops and their dependants which will require 1,400 additional homes in the wider area. Larkhill and its associated military infrastructure are likely to remain as features in the landscape for the foreseeable future and the development of any additional infrastructure must involve all relevant partners.72

5.18 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

5.18.1 In 2004, the RSPB established a nature reserve for chalk grassland at Normanton Down at Stonehenge to enhance and protect the population of breeding and roosting stone-curlews. The RSPB have a management agreement with the landowner which was recently extended by 34 hectares to over 80 hectares of land

Hewetson Memorial restoration project 2012. Working in partnership with the military.

© B

eth

Tho

mas


south of, and including part of, the Normanton Down Barrow Group. They have established two breeding plots for stone-curlews, which are also used as roost sites in the autumn by large numbers of these birds. They have also greatly improved the conservation of the barrows in their care by removing scrub and old fencing from them and introducing sheep. The RSPB now aims to work with the landowner to enhance the chalk flora to provide conditions suitable for a wider range of downland butterflies and invertebrates, and make Normanton Down a ‘stepping stone’ for wildlife in the wider Chalk Country landscape. Although (as before) there is no public access to this privately owned site, the RSPB has promoted access through a controlled number of escorted group visits each year.

5.19 Museums

5.19.1 Wiltshire Museum (WM) and Salisbury Museum (SM) contain important collections of archaeological artefacts from the WHS designated by the Government as pre-eminent collections of national and international importance, and feature new high-quality interpretative displays. They are repositories for archaeological archives from the WHS and SM is the museum where new material from the Stonehenge part of the WHS is archived. However, both museums have closed their storage to new items because they have no more space for new additions. This is of serious concern and is addressed at a number of places below including in Section 12.0 (Research).

5.19.2 The Alexander Keiller Museum mentioned above at 5.10.9 holds one of the most important prehistoric archaeological collections in Britain. The Stables Gallery and Barn Gallery contain a unique collection of many thousands of artefacts discovered during excavations in the Avebury part of the WHS. The artefacts from the Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure in particular are nationally significant as it was one of the first to be excavated, becoming a classic ‘type site’, important in the development of the discipline of archaeology in the 20th century. The Museum buildings and part of the collections are in the freehold ownership of The National Trust and in English Heritage guardianship on behalf of the Secretary of State for the DCMS; the museum collection is in state ownership and is on loan to the National Trust from English Heritage. The commitment of these organisations and exemplary partnership working is essential for the long-term success and support of this valuable resource.

HRH Princess Anne with David Dawson, the Director of the Wiltshire Museum, at the opening of the new Prehistoric Wiltshire Galleries

© W

iltsh

ire M

useu

m

5.20 The local community

Stonehenge

5.20.1 A number of villages and settlements are located within and around the WHS, which together comprise the homes of several thousand people. The five main settlements are parts of the Larkhill Garrison, parts of Amesbury, West Amesbury, Wilsford cum Lake. The Local Development Plan includes a number of areas of growth for housing in the area.

5.20.2 Although these settlements are not at the heart of the Stonehenge part of the WHS, as at Avebury, the existence of the WHS is an important factor for their residents. On the positive side, it can bring additional funding and other improvements. Similarly, the large number of visitors to the WHS can have a positive impact on the local economy but can also have adverse effects, for example, by increased traffic flows or parking in local settlements. There are no additional statutory planning restrictions but applicants for planning permission will need to consider how their development will impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.


75

The Cove at Avebury. Much of Avebury village lies within the Henge monument

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l

5.20.3 The frequent congestion along the A303 at busy times of the day and year is a cause of frustration for local residents, particularly as a number of schemes have been proposed and withdrawn over many years. Some Wiltshire Council members and local residents are active in campaigns to improve the road network in the locality of Stonehenge and at Winterbourne Stoke just west of the WHS boundary. WHS status can be seen as a barrier to development and this can cause negative feelings regarding the WHS.

5.20.4 Generally, the existence of Stonehenge is a source of local pride as well as social benefits for the community. The site is used, for example, by the local schools for educational purposes. There are opportunities for further community engagement and this joint Management Plan builds on previous work to expand such projects over its lifetime. This is discussed further in Section 10.0 (Interpretation, Learning and Community Engagement).

Avebury

5.20.5 A number of villages and hamlets are located within and adjacent to the WHS which together comprise the homes of about 1,100 people. The Parish of Avebury

(about 500 people) lies entirely within the WHS, and parts of Winterbourne Monkton (160 people), Fyfield (160 people) and West Overton (300 people) also fall within its boundary.

5.20.6 Avebury village itself lies at the heart of the WHS and can be viewed in some ways as an archetypal English village in terms of its development and component parts. It comprises a small village of Saxon origins, with old houses clustered around the church and High Street. The juxtaposition of the village with a large monument of international renown, however, creates an atypical identity, especially with the influx of visitors to the Henge and village on an almost daily basis. Avebury is thus both an archaeological site and a village. In many ways their histories are so intertwined, as they have been for centuries, that the management of the two cannot be separated.

5.20.7 The modern settlement of Avebury comprises Avebury village and Avebury Trusloe, a community of around 175 households. Avebury village is composed of mainly period residential houses oriented along the High Street and Green Street, and includes a mobile home park just to the north of the village. A number of local amenities are also located in the village: the church, the local pub, social


centre, Avebury Social Club, nursery school, community shop and post office. There are also a number of small local businesses, most of which cater for the needs of tourists as well as locals. Avebury Trusloe to the west across the River Kennet is a more secluded part of the village with its mixture of 20th-century council houses many of which are now privately owned, individual cottages and farmhouses and a manor house.

5.20.8 The Avebury community is diverse, displaying a range of social characteristics. The residents comprise a mixture of ‘old families’ who have been in residence for several generations, and more ‘recent’ arrivals. The local community expresses its views about the monuments and the identity of the village through the Parish Council and the Avebury Society both of which are represented on the WHS Steering Committee. The Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack produced in 2008 which included the Values and Voices project was invaluable in allowing residents to work with experts and professionals to articulate what is important to them about Avebury and the WHS.

5.20.9 The prominence and interrelationship of the monuments with the local settlements provides a strong sense of identity for residents of the Avebury part of the WHS. It can also bring some challenges. At busy times villagers can experience disruption to their normal lives including issues related to parking and obstruction in the High Street. The pagan observances that take place throughout the year have in the past created some challenges for the village which is at the heart of celebrations. This is particularly true at Summer Solstice when a large number of visitors with very different lifestyles to most residents arrive and stay overnight. Generally WHS partners work together to successfully manage such challenges.

5.20.10 As at Stonehenge, there are no additional statutory restrictions on development, however the sensitivity of the WHS may mean that more detailed evidence is required to accompany planning applications and greater mitigation required.

5.21 Agriculture

See Maps 3 and 14 – Archaeology and land use

5.21.1 Farming has been a constant, albeit changing, feature in the landscape of the WHS over the last six millennia. The chalk downland landscape is productive arable farmland, and it is agriculture, as much as the visible archaeology, that gives the WHS landscape its particular characteristics. Equally important, it is continued agricultural use that maintains the structure and appearance of the landscape, and it is

farmers who are the primary ‘managers’ of the majority of the WHS. Farmers themselves are in turn subject to the wider influences of national and European agricultural policies and economics as well as the global market. The majority of land within the WHS is under agricultural management. In addition the farms within the WHS, some of which have been occupied over several generations, are home to many farming families and their employees. The attitude and approach of landowners and tenant farmers towards the management of the WHS, their ability to gain an acceptable income, and maintain their family homes, is of fundamental importance.

5.21.2 At Avebury in addition to agricultural land use, there is a large racing yard at Beckhampton, with gallops in the western part of the WHS. There are also gallops in the east of the WHS on Fyfield Down, Clatford Down and Manton Down. There are two smaller racing yards at North Farm and East Kennett and many of the farms offer livery accommodation.

Land tenure

5.21.3 There is generally no constraint over the way in which farming is carried out in the vast majority of the Site, although an increasing number of farms have entered into agri-environmental schemes which require the land to be managed in a certain way. At Stonehenge, most farms include land both within and outside the WHS. At Avebury, two farmers have all their land within the WHS boundary.

Size of farms

5.21.4 At Stonehenge, farm sizes vary from 650 to 2,300 hectares, holding land both in and outside the WHS boundary. At Avebury, farms with land in the WHS have a mean average of 490 hectares. Around 60% of the WHS is in arable cultivation.

Farming systems

5.21.5 Farms are predominantly mixed arable, growing mainly cereals in rotation with temporary grassland. There is very little land which does not have arable potential. There are few steep slopes and only the water meadows in the Avon and Kennet valleys are restricted to non-arable use, although some of these water meadows have some arable potential.

5.21.6 There are a few areas of relict permanent grassland where there are protected monuments, SSSIs/NNRs or on steep slopes, but these are relatively insignificant in geographical terms. Arable farming is the dominant


77

land use, with cereal crops rotated with temporary grassland or ‘leys’. The rotational grassland is utilised variously by beef cattle, dairy cows and sheep. Cattle buildings are generally located on the fringes of the WHS. With large fields and easy-working soils, labour utilisation is efficient, using large machinery. At Avebury a number of large grain drying buildings have been given permission within the WHS in recent years which reflects changing agricultural practices.

Agricultural land quality constraints

5.21.7 Land quality is typically classified as Grade 3 by Defra with generally shallow topsoil, often with a high stone content. The soils are inherently suitable for large-scale production of combinable crops, though falling organic matter contents under continuous arable systems predispose to the inclusion of grass in the rotation. However, grass yields are not high with a pronounced mid-season reduction in yield as a result of moisture deficits. This places an added reliance on conserved grass for feeding at times of shortage, and careful management of grass by control of grazing is highly desirable. The free-draining nature of most soils allows

outwintering of livestock, though the exposed nature of the land does not allow full advantage to be taken of this property. Thus the type of farming is confined to the major agricultural commodities, with little scope for diversification into higher value products such as fruit or vegetable production.

5.22 Agri-environmental schemes

See Maps 4 and 15 – Grass reversion since 2000

5.22.1 Special grants for grass reversion in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS were put in place by Defra in 2002 under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS), as part of an exemplary partnership with English Heritage and the National Trust. Although the entry to this scheme and its successor (see below) were and are completely voluntary, farmers were encouraged to return arable fields to grass in the priority archaeological areas. A rate 50% higher than the norm was negotiated for the World Heritage Site. The aims were to stop plough damage to prehistoric monuments, improve their setting and improve the

Farming has been a constant but changing feature in the WHS for millennia. Coneybury Henge

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/Luc

y Ev

ersh

ed


ecological value of the area. Advisers from the Rural Development Service (now Natural England) worked closely with WHS Coordinators to promote and implement the special project on the ground. It proved very successful, and over 340 hectares were signed up to be reverted from former arable land to pasture at Stonehenge, protecting and enhancing the landscape setting of 75 ancient monuments. Most of the priorities for grass reversion identified in 2002 have been covered by the agri-environment agreements signed to date, but further areas have been identified for future reversion. At Avebury a total of 140 hectares was converted to grass, protecting around 50 monuments.

5.22.2 In March 2005, the CSS grant was replaced by the Environmental Stewardship Scheme, which offered similar and higher payments for grass reversion and new opportunities to protect archaeological features. Although enhanced special project area payments could no longer be made under European Union rules, the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS was identified as one of the target areas for the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). The Natural England adviser worked closely with the WHS Coordinators, English Heritage, landowners including the National Trust, and other partners, focusing on the remaining priorities for grass reversion, scrub removal, protection of monuments from burrowing animals, tree surgery, chalk grassland reversion and recreation and conservation of farmland birds/other wildlife.

5.22.3 This Environmental Stewardship Scheme ended in 2014 and at the time of writing details of its replacement the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme are just emerging. Natural England will maintain a focus on the WHS for targeted partnership projects. There is some concern that the funds available through the new Countryside Stewardship scheme may not be sufficient to encourage farmers to renew existing schemes or enter into new agreements to protect fragile archaeological remains. This issue is discussed further below at Section 8.0 (Conservation).

5.23 Woodland and forestry management

5.23.1 Woodland within the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS accounts for 8% and 4.3% of land cover, respectively. There are 84 discrete areas of woodland or scrub within Stonehenge and 105 within Avebury. Through the analysis of woodland type/historic function, it is clear the nature of woodland cover is very different within each part of the WHS.73

5.23.2 Little or none of the woodland on the light chalk soils is managed or harvested for its timber value. Four main functions characterise the historic woodland landscape:74

Agrarian – part of the agricultural landscape and boundaries

Aesthetic – designed landscape and formal pleasure planting

Estate – utilisation for business and leisure (eg shooting) Screening – visual or environmental (wind break)

barriers.

5.23.3 In addition, woodlands contribute to the biodiversity of the landscape as a whole.

Stonehenge

5.23.4 Woodlands of several types are to be found in the Stonehenge part of the WHS. These include: impressive broadleaf plantations such as the beech copses at the Lake Barrow Group; former hazel/ash coppices at Fargo, Normanton Gorse and Seven Barrows; game copses such as Luxenborough; and mixed or coniferous plantations associated with Larkhill, the military training area and parts of Fargo Plantation. Mature woodland is found on Vespasian’s Camp (part of an historic park and garden) and along the Avon Valley. Of the total woodland surveyed by the WHS Woodland Strategy 37% is estate planting, 24% aesthetic woodland, 17% agrarian planting and 22% screeing.75

Avebury

5.23.5 Agrarian woodland within Avebury WHS accounts for 55% of planting. This is the combination of valley enclosure mainly along the River Kennet, roadside hedges, Wroughton Copse on Fyfield Down and the distribution of scrub and brush across the unenclosed downland. Estate planting is the next largest contributor to Avebury woodland character and accounts for 38% of trees. The broad distribution of estate planting is around the edges of the WHS, for instance around Fyfield Down, Beckhampton Penning, Fox Covert, Windmill Hill and Avebury Down Barn. 76 The remainder of woodland is screening and aesthetic planting such as the beech trees on the barrow clumps known locally as ‘hedgehogs’.

Part Two

Key management issues and opportunities

Arable farming at Avebury below the Ridgeway© K930754 Historic England

80 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Two: Key management issues and opportunites

Part Two: Key management issues and opportunities

6.0 INTRODUCTION TO KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

6.0.1 The key purpose of the Management Plan is to set out a framework for the management of the WHS to ensure its protection and the maintenance of its OUV alongside its continued sustainable use. To achieve this, the Management Plan needs to address sustainability issues relating to visitor access, experience and use of the Site, the retention of a sustainable working agricultural economy and the long-term social, economic and amenity needs of the local community.

6.0.2 The Plan does this by identification and consideration of key issues, threats and opportunities and by the development of policies and actions to deal with them. The term ‘issue’ is used in the Plan in its widest sense and refers not only to problems or threats but also to changes in the management context that will need to be reflected in the management framework. Part Two of the Management Plan sets out and discusses the key issues, threats and opportunities. Unlike the previous Avebury and Stonehenge Management Plans which discussed issues in isolation in Part Two, this Plan includes discussion of both the issues and the agreed approaches and actions for addressing them in one section. This has been done to provide greater clarity regarding the rationale for the framework, a more cohesive and accessible document with greater ease of reference, and to minimise repetition as far as possible. The aims and policies without the issues are set out in Part Three for reference.

6.0.3 Part Two draws extensively on the Avebury 2005 and Stonehenge 2009 Plans which considered the key issues in some detail. It also draws on the various surveys and other work carried out in the WHS since the production of these two Plans. As with other parts of the Plan, it has benefited greatly from the expertise, knowledge and experience of the WHS partners and members of the Management Plan Project Board, Steering Committees, Stonehenge Advisory Forum, ASAHRG and the WHS Partnership Panel. The wider stakeholder community has also had the opportunity to input to the process through a series of workshops and both formal and informal consultation.

6.0.4 Considerable progress has been made on many of the issues at Avebury and Stonehenge since the last Plans were published in 2005 and 2009 respectively. It may now be easier to make progress on some of the more challenging issues due to changes in the

management context. In addition, some new issues that have arisen in recent years are discussed for the first time. There have also been considerable changes in both international and national policy which will affect the future management and conservation of the site. Not least of these is adoption of the Statement of OUV by UNESCO in 2013 which serves as the focus for our management aims, policies and actions. UNESCO’s increased focus on the role of the community and the relationship of WHSs to sustainable economic development has also raised new issues and opportunities that are reflected in the Plan.

6.0.5 The issues, threats and opportunities were identified for both Avebury and Stonehenge during their respective review processes. These were signed off by the Project Board and both Steering Committees. They were then reviewed and rationalised to arrive at a list of 61 key issues. These are considered sequentially, and are grouped together and discussed under the following eight themes:

Planning and Policy Boundaries of the WHS Conservation Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism Interpretation, Learning and Community

Engagement Roads and Traffic Research Management, Liaison and Monitoring

6.0.6 Within each section the aim related to the theme appears at the start. Sub-sections discuss the issues and threats in each area. Opportunities and approaches to addressing these issues and threats are also discussed in these sections. The actions agreed with WHS partners are indicated where relevant in the text and the policy and actions are listed below each section for ease of reference. They appear in brackets within the text alongside the appropriate policy number. All aims, policies and actions included in the Management Plan are set out in a comprehensive table in Part Four of the Plan. This table provides additional information on lead and key partners, priority, timescales and outcomes/success measures.

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Two: Key management issues and opportunites

81

7.0 PLANNING AND POLICY

Aim 1: The Management Plan will be endorsed

by those bodies and individuals responsible for its

implementation as the framework for long-term

detailed decision-making on the protection and

enhancement of the WHS and the maintenance of

its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Its aims and

policies should be incorporated in relevant planning

guidance and policies

7.0 Introduction

7.0.1 There have been considerable changes in the planning system and policy framework at international, national and local levels since the publication of the Avebury Management Plan in 2005. These changes have been particularly marked at national and local level in the five years following the publication of the Stonehenge Management Plan in 2009. Section 4.0 (Current Policy Context) sets out the policy and guidance framework at all levels. This section mentions these changes where they are relevant to the WHS Management Plan aims, policies and actions.

7.0.2 The first section discusses the requirement to produce a Statement of OUV and its impact on the management framework for the WHS. Changes to the planning framework at a national level that are directly relevant to WHS issues are outlined. At a local level the Wiltshire Core Strategy and its relevant policies as well as WHS Management Plan actions resulting from these are outlined. In addition the section highlights the relevant statutory and non-statutory strategies and plans. Their relationship to the WHS is reviewed as well as actions required to ensure they reflect the aims and policies of the WHS Management Plan.

7.0.3 Under development pressures, current issues and trends relevant to the WHS and its setting are listed. These include large renewable energy schemes, agricultural development and the scale of replacement dwellings. The impact of light pollution and additional tourist facilities is also discussed. Agreed policies and action to protect the WHS and sustain its OUV are set out. This includes the production of a WHS Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or appropriate planning guidance as well as the development of a WHS Setting Study. In addition the need for a review of the boundary to enhance the integrity of the Stonehenge part of the WHS is discussed.

7.1 Evolving UNESCO policies and guidance

Issue1: UNESCO requirements need to be met. Its guidance and the newly adopted UNESCO Statement of Outstanding Universal Value need to be reflected in the framework for the protection and management of the WHS

7.1.1 Details of UNESCO’s policy and guidance which constitutes the international framework for the management of the WHS can be found in Section 4.1. The UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972) provides protection at an international level for all WHSs in the UK.

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value: key

protection and management requirements

7.1.2 Following changes in the UNESCO requirements for all WHSs set out in more detail at 4.1.6, the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Statement of OUV) was adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2013. This document is a key reference for the effective protection and management of the WHS, the main objective of which should be to sustain its OUV. 77

7.1.3 The following key protection and management issues and requirements set out in the UNESCO Statement of OUV have been reflected in drafting of the aims, policies and actions in the Management Plan:

Development pressures: Setting Study and SPD/planning guidance reiterated in Wiltshire Core Strategy WHS Policy (59)

Boundary Review at Stonehenge Importance of sustainable, managed public access An overall visitor management and interpretation

St James Church and sixteenth-century Avebury Manor Dovecote

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


strategy, together with a landscape strategy to optimise access to and understanding of the WHS

Maintain and enhance the improvements to monuments achieved through agri-environment schemes supporting grassland reversion

Avoid erosion of earthen monuments and buried archaeology through visitor pressure and burrowing animals

Impact of roads and traffic remains a major challenge in both parts of the World Heritage Property. The A303 continues to have a negative impact on the setting of Stonehenge, the integrity of the WHS and visitor access to some parts of the wider landscape. The A4 and other roads have a similar impact at Avebury

Research to develop, in particular, understanding of the overall relationship between buried and standing remains and its implications for the development, use and meaning of the landscape over time.

Engagement of local residents in the stewardship of the WHS.

UNESCO’s guidance on coordinated management

of serial sites

7.1.4 The Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the World Heritage Convention contain guidance on the management of serial sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury. This states that ‘in the case of serial properties, a management system or mechanisms for ensuring the coordinated management of the separate components are essential’.78 This has now been achieved following a governance review of the WHS whose findings were discussed, agreed and implemented by the two Steering Committees in 2013. Support for the new WHS Coordination Unit needs to be maintained and agreement sought on its resourcing. This is discussed further in Part Two, Section 13.0 (Management, Liaison and Monitoring), and reflected in Policy 8b.

WHS and sustainable development

7.1.5 In addition to the Operational Guidelines, the World Heritage Committee develops further guidance at its annual meetings. This can cover both general and site-specific matters. UNESCO also produces resource manuals to meet identified needs for guidance on the implementation of the Convention. Of particular significance for this Management Plan is the Committee’s focus on the role of the Convention in sustainable development. This is particularly relevant to Part Two, Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism). The recent World Heritage

Resource Manual, Managing Cultural World Heritage (2013), was produced on behalf of the Committee and Word Heritage Centre by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), ICOMOS and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The manual underlines the role of heritage as a ‘powerful contributor to environmental, social and economic sustainability’. It advises that the management of WHSs should ‘embrace initiatives that deliver mutual benefits to the property and its surroundings that may not seem essential to the protection of the OUV, but may prove important in the long term because they tie the property into its context in a positive and enduring way, thus favouring its long-term survival’. This echoes the theme of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in 2012 which celebrated sustainable development and the relationship of local communities to their heritage. These principles are reflected in the framework set out in this Plan.

Endorsement of the WHS Management Plan

7.1.6 The above paragraphs and Section 4.0 on Current Policy Context demonstrate the degree to which international involvement and guidance informs the management of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. It has been important to take this into account in developing the aims, policies and actions in the Management Plan. The Plan complies fully with the international policy and guidance set out by UNESCO. It was prepared with the full participation of key WHS stakeholders including the representatives of the local community. Consensus was reached on its aims, policies and actions by all members of the WHS partnership. The Plan has also undergone a 12-week period of public consultation. At the end of the process DCMS will submit the Plan to UNESCO for final approval. All organisations on the WHSPP and local Steering Committees will then endorse the Management Plan. (Policy 1a/Actions1, 2)

Managing Cultural World Heritage 2013


83

7.2 Changes to the English planning system and local government structure

Issue 2: The effect of changes in national policy including the introduction of the Localism Act 2011, Neighbourhood Plans and the National Planning Policy Framework (2013) as well as changes in local government structure

7.2.1 The planning policy context is set out in Section 4.2 (Current Policy Context). It sets out changes in the planning system, the relevant contents of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It also set out the requirements for assessing the impacts of new developments and the changes to call-in procedures. This section discusses issues that have arisen in relation to these changes and the agreed policies and actions to address them.

Wiltshire Council Unitary Authority

7.2.2 Wiltshire Council came into existence as a Unitary Authority in April 2009 following the structural changes to local government in some areas in England.79 It embraced both Salisbury District Council and Kennet District Council which, prior to this date were the two local planning authorities responsible for the Stonehenge and Avebury parts of the WHS respectively. The resultant single planning authority has provided a number of opportunities to establish a coherent approach to the protection of the whole Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. This has been particularly pertinent following the adoption of the single Statement of OUV by UNESCO in 2013.

7.2.3 The 2005 Avebury Management Plan was endorsed by Kennet District Council and Wiltshire Council. The 2000 Stonehenge Plan was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Salisbury Local Plan. The first WHS Management Plan to be produced since the establishment of the Unitary Authority was for Stonehenge in 2009. This was endorsed by Wiltshire Council on 15 July 2009 and was considered a material consideration for the purposes of determining planning proposals.

7.2.4 Wiltshire Council inherited the local plans produced by the former district councils in Wiltshire. The policies contained within those documents formed part of the development plan for Wiltshire. Salisbury District Council had begun work on the South Wiltshire Core Strategy as part of its Local Development Framework prior to establishment of the new unitary authority in 2009. Wiltshire Council adopted the completed South Wiltshire Core Strategy on 7 February 2012. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy included specific policies to improve the setting of Stonehenge, interpretation and access, and the protection of the World Heritage Site. The former have to some extent been achieved through the closure of the A344, the removal of old visitor facilities and the opening of the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre.

Wiltshire Core Strategy

7.2.5 Since the changes to the planning system in 2013 the local planning authorities have been required to produce a

Policy 1a – Government departments, agencies and other statutory bodies responsible for making and implementing national policies and for undertaking activities that may impact on the WHS and its environs should recognise the importance of the WHS and its need for special treatment and a unified approach to sustain its OUV

ACTIONS

1 Submit WHS Management Plan to UNESCO. 2 All organisations represented on the World

Heritage Site Partnership Panel (WHSPP) and Steering Committees (SC) to endorse/adopt the Management Plan.

Stonehenge Visitor Centre under construction following Environmental Impact Assessment

© 2

7527

_020

His

tori

c En

glan

d


Local Plan consisting of Development Plan Documents (DPD) including the central DPD: the Core Strategy. The Wiltshire Core Strategy was adopted by Wiltshire Council in January 2015. It replaces both the South Wiltshire document and the Kennet Local Plan adopted by Kennet District Council in 2004. A number of Avebury specific policies have been saved from the Kennet Local Plan. These relate to tourism and car parking and can be found at Appendix H.

Saved policies

7.2.6 The Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out a small number of policies from the Kennet Local Plan that remain in use. These are policies that offer guidance not currently covered by the Core Strategy. The policies are TR6, 8 and 9. Policies TR 6 and 8 refer to visitor facilities and accommodation while TR9 refers to car parking. TR9 requires that there is no significant net increase in the number of formal car parking spaces within the WHS. A review of these policies is scheduled to establish whether there is an ongoing need to save them. If this is established, relevant modifications will be made to the Core Strategy. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) includes an action to complete this review in 2016. Wiltshire Council and other relevant WHS stakeholders will need to engage with this process to ensure that adequate protection is retained within the policy framework. (Policy 1b/Action 6)

WHS SPD/planning policy guidance

7.2.7 The Wiltshire Core Strategy includes a specific robust policy relating to the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site. Policy 59 sets out to ensure the protection of the WHS and its setting from inappropriate development in order to sustain its OUV. The policy highlights the need to produce supplementary planning guidance – possibly a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) – to assist in articulating the spatial implications of the attributes of OUV. (Policy 1b/Action 4) It also underlines the need to protect the setting of the WHS to sustain the OUV and highlights the need for a Setting Study. (Policy2b/Action 15)

7.2.8 It will be necessary to continue to work in close partnership with Wiltshire Council to encourage the timely production of the Setting Study and SPD. They will need to be included in the LDS that sets out the planned programme of work on the Local Plan related documents over a three-year period. The current LDS covers the period from 2014 to 2017. The timescale for production of the SPD will need to be

negotiated with Wiltshire Council. Finding resources for the development of these documents, identified as particularly important for the protection of the WHS both within the Statement of OUV and the Core Strategy, in a period of government cutbacks in local authority funding will require commitment and exemplary partnership working.

7.2.9 There are a number of other policies in the Core Strategy which relate to the protection of the WHS and its setting. These can be found under the relevant strategic objectives, particularly objective 5: protecting and enhancing the natural, historic and built environment. The WHS is also mentioned in relation to sustainable tourism under objective 1: delivering a thriving economy, and under objective 2: to address climate change in relation to the sensitivity of the WHS landscape and its setting. The WHS is mentioned in the relevant area sections. For Stonehenge these are Amesbury, Salisbury and South Wiltshire; and for Avebury, the Marlborough, Calne and Devizes areas. Further details of the relevant policies can be found in Appendix H.

Policy and guidance: partner and other organisations

7.2.10 On occasion the policies or guidance of national agencies may inadvertently conflict with the aims of protecting and enhancing the WHS and its attributes of OUV, and the policies of the Management Plan. Addressing this issue may involve lobbying at a national level. An example of this is the Forestry Commission’s policy requiring replanting when trees are felled. The WHS Woodland Strategy has identified areas of the WHS where this is undesirable for example where trees risk damaging archaeology or obscuring key views between monuments. Dispensations need to be agreed at a national level to help protect and enhance the WHS. This will need to be understood and implemented locally. (Policy 1b/Action 3)

7.2.11 It is important that all partner and other relevant organisations at a national and local level commit to review whether there is a need to produce additional agreed policies, guidance or plans to assist in protecting the WHS and achieving the WHS Management Plan aims, policies and actions. If existing policy and guidance is adequate, consideration should be given to whether any changes are required to ensure it is effectively implemented. (Policy 1b/Action 5)


85

7.3 Concordance with other statutory and non-statutory strategies and plans

Issue 3: The need to align with other statutory and non-statutory strategies and plans such as the Wiltshire Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

7.3.1 Ensuring that the Management Plan is aligned with other statutory and non-statutory policy, plans and strategies will help to protect the WHS and encourage positive partnership working as well as increase the opportunities for accessing related funding. This requires liaison by the WHS Coordination Unit and commitment among WHS partners to ensure their organisation reflects the aims and policies of the WHS. In addition, the Coordinators should respond to relevant public consultations.

(Policy 1c/Action 7)

7.3.2 Previous WHS Management Plans have identified the need to coordinate with relevant plans and strategies at a local level. Many of these are still in place, such as the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan which was updated in 2014, while others such as Sustainable Community Strategies are now defunct. A number of new opportunities for coordination have arisen at a local level. A list of relevant strategies and plans can be found at Part One, Section 4.3 (Current Policy Context). The issues and opportunities related to some of these are discussed below.

North Wessex Downs AONB

7.3.4 Avebury lies completely within the North Wessex Downs AONB which is a nationally protected landscape that is required to produce a statutory management plan. It is essential that the NWDAONB plan and related guidance and strategies reflect the aims and policies of the WHS. Additional relevant documents include the Wind Turbine Sensitivity Study and the AONB Position Statements on Housing, Renewable Energy and Setting (March 2012). In addition there are AONB strategies on Arable Biodiversity (2008, updated 2010), Woodland (2005) and Chalk Grassland (2005). Close cooperation in their production and update is very important. The next update of the NWAONB management plan is due in 2019.

Policy 1b – Set within the framework provided by the Management Plan, relevant stakeholders should implement existing policy and guidance and where necessary develop policies and written guidance at a national and local level for the improved management and conservation of the WHS. These policies should ensure the maintenance of its OUV by protecting the physical fabric, character, appearance, setting and views into and out of the WHS. Relevant Management Plan policies should be incorporated within the Core Strategy and other relevant development plan documents within the Local Plan and additional WHS planning guidance produced

ACTIONS

3 Advocate and contribute to the formulation of appropriate national policies. Where necessary agree local exceptions from national policies to protect the WHS and its attributes of OUV in line with the obligations of the World Heritage Convention.

4 Identify and produce the most appropriate form of planning guidance. Establish a working group to consider a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that explains the significance of the WHS and ensures that development management of the site, its attributes of OUV, and its setting reflects its designation as set out in the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value.

5 All WHS partners and other relevant organisations to ensure effective implementation of existing policies and review the need to produce additional agreed policies/guidance/plans to assist in achieving WHS Management Plan aims, policies and actions.

6 Review saved WHS policies from Kennet Local Plan and ensure that relevant policies are incorporated in the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan, 2014–2019


Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

7.3.5 Local authorities are still required to produce a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment ( JSNA). The Guidance on the Production of JSNA and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies from the Department for Health came into effect in April 2013. It highlights the fact that the production of a JSNA is an ongoing process by which local authorities and other public sector partners jointly describe the current and future health and wellbeing needs of its local population and identify priorities for action. The JSNA is about the wider aspects of health including poverty, employment, education, public safety, housing and the environment. The ultimate purpose of the JSNA process is to use the information gathered to identify local priorities, services and interventions to achieve better health and wellbeing outcomes and reduce health inequalities.

7.3.6 A statutory JSNA was first produced for the whole of Wiltshire in 2009. In Wiltshire the process has been extended to include Joint Strategic Needs Assessments for community areas. Through participatory process the community is invited to produce JSNAs focused on their area. The priorities identified are used to inform strategies and plans and in addition target local funding available through Community Area Boards. There are clearly methodological links between JSNAs and the participatory way in which WHS Management Plans are developed by key stakeholders with the involvement of local and other interested communities. It will be helpful for WHS Coordinators and other partners to engage with this process so that the contribution of the WHS to quality of the environment and the wellbeing of the community is better understood and reflected in JSNA priorities. Heritage is often taken for granted and without greater public understanding of its role and the need for protection and management the resources for these functions are likely to continue to diminish.

Wiltshire State of the Environment Report

7.3.7 The Wiltshire State of the Environment Report is another document that should be informed by the aims of the WHS Management Plan. It is produced on behalf of the Local Nature Partnership for Wiltshire and Swindon and provides an environmental evidence base to inform policy and decision-making by local authorities and others, such as the JSNA. It is updated on an annual basis which offers the opportunity to ensure WHS aims are reflected and routes to possible funding established.

Green Infrastructure Strategy

7.3.8 Wiltshire Council is in the process of developing a Green Infrastructure Strategy to provide a long-term vision and strategic framework for the delivery of a planned high quality, multi-functional network of green infrastructure across Wiltshire. This is another document that will set out priorities and actions which may attract funding from routes such as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL is a general levy on all development, designed to raise funds for the overall infrastructure needed as a result of an increase in development in an area. It came into force in April 2014. The WHS Coordination Unit should work with the relevant officers in Wiltshire Council to assist in achieving related aims and actions within the WHS Management Plan.

Wiltshire Local Transport Plan

7.3.9 The Wiltshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) sets out the Council’s objectives, plans and indicators for transport in Wiltshire. Furthermore, as a document developed through partnership working and extensive consultation, the LTP also provides the framework for all other organisations with a direct or indirect involvement in transport in Wiltshire.

Policy 1c – Ensure any other plans or strategies produced locally, such as Neighbourhood Plans and the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan contain policies that support the protection of the WHS and its setting and the maintenance of its OUV

ACTIONS

7 Liaise with Wiltshire Council and other partner organisations developing plans and policies to ensure the WHS and its attributes of OUV and their significance are recognised and appropriately safeguarded. Respond to relevant public consultations.

Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011–2026


87

7.4 Development management

Issue 4: There is a need to ensure that development that would have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV is not permitted

SPD/planning guidance

7.4.1 The development management system is a key tool in the long-term protection of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Local planning authorities are required to accept WHS Management Plans as a material consideration when making decisions on planning applications, as is the Secretary of State in determining cases on appeal or following call-in (Part One, Section 4.2.12). This policy should be implemented and to strengthen this protection the planning-related element of WHS Management Plans should also be developed and adopted as an SPD or relevant planning guidance as proposed in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. This would assist greatly in articulating the spatial implications of the attributes of OUV which are often poorly understood. (Policy 1b/Action 4)

Planning applications in the WHS and its setting

7.4.2 In the nine years since the publication of the Avebury WHS Management Plan and in the five since the last Stonehenge Plan there have been a number of significant applications.

7.4.3 At Avebury, as would be expected due to its settlements, there have been a greater number of planning applications within the WHS than at Stonehenge. The majority were for small-scale householder developments such as extensions which, unless they are sited directly on archaeologically sensitive land, have

little impact on WHS and its OUV. However some of these applications have been for more significant developments. Other planning applications outside the WHS have also had the potential to affect its setting and therefore the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

7.4.4 At Stonehenge the number of applications has been higher than would normally be expected in such a sparsely populated landscape because of the current Stonehenge Article 4 Direction Area which withdraws some permitted development rights relating to agricultural and forestry operations (see 7.4.23).

Provision of adequate evidence

7.4.5 It is important that applications are carefully assessed to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV either directly on the physical remains or on their setting. Adequate evidence needs to be requested from the developer to enable consultees to assess any possible impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Desk-based assessments and evaluation should be requested, where appropriate, for proposals within the WHS. The design and scale of proposals will be important. Larger schemes at some distance from the WHS may still fall within its setting and need to provide evidence that they will not have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Even where a development is deemed suitable in principle, appropriate mitigation should be provided through relevant conditions such as requiring appropriate design, suitable materials and landscaping, and adequate opportunities for archaeological excavation and recording where relevant.

Issue 5: Increasing development pressure including at present changes in farming practice, large-scale renewable energy schemes, telecommunication infrastructure, army rebasing and the increased size of replacement dwellings

Development pressures

7.4.6 Changes in European and national policy and the economic climate have had measurable impacts on development pressure within the WHS. The availability of subsidies has a significant effect on the number and scale of applications for renewable energy schemes both within the WHS and in its setting.

Renewable energy and telecommunication

infrastructure

7.4.7 At Avebury since 2010 there have been an increasing number of applications for solar arrays, photovoltaic

ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments 2011

Heritage Statements provided as part of a planning application set out impacts on the historic environment


cells and wind turbines. Most of these have been in the setting of the WHS and a number have been fairly substantial proposals. Those that have gained permission within the WHS have been roof-mounted and negotiations on the scale and design have ensured that harmful impacts were largely avoided. Guidance would be very helpful for managers, officers and developers. Although the government appears to be reconsidering the financial support it is offering for on-shore developments it may alter its policies at any point and relevant guidance should be prepared as part of an SPD as a proactive management tool. In additional infrastructure related to telecommunications such as masts and other related infrastructure have the potential to have significant negative impacts on the setting of monuments and in some cases their physical remains.

Army Basing Programme

7.4.8 Government policy on rebasing of British troops currently posted in Europe has increased development pressure at Stonehenge which lies close to Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA), the chosen focus for the MoD. The Army Basing Review was announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 5 March 2013, taking its lead from the new Army 2020 Plan outlined in July 2012. An extensive options appraisal was carried out in 2014 to identify the most appropriate and sustainable sites in Wiltshire to house around 4,000 additional military personnel and their dependants. Options considered included Larkhill Garrison.

7.4.9 The MoD undertook a consultation process in partnership with Wiltshire Council before identifying sites for inclusion in its Master Plan. The Statement of OUV assisted in the screening process by enabling partners to assess and articulate the potential impacts on the WHS and its setting. Options that will not adversely impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV have been identified for the development.

Agricultural development

7.4.10 Farming is the mainstay of the rural economy at both Stonehenge and Avebury and WHS landowners and farmers are key stewards of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Working in partnership with the farming community through environmental stewardship schemes provides crucial protection for the areas of sensitive archaeology vulnerable to cultivation while ensuring agricultural livelihoods are supported.

7.4.11 Changes in farming practice in response to European policy and the economic climate have led to an increasing number of applications for large-scale grain stores within the WHS and its setting. There have been four applications for substantial grain stores in the Avebury landscape since 2010. Three of these were given permission after substantial negotiations and amendments to the original plans to minimise impact. Adequate mitigation is not always possible and will depend to a great extent on the sensitivity of the proposed location.

7.4.12 Large-scale, industrial grain stores have the potential to impact negatively on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This could be through direct impact on the physical remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments and sites and visual impact on their settings as well as the interrelationship of monuments and the character of the WHS landscape. They are often accompanied by consequential developments such as additional tracks which present further potentially negative impacts.

7.4.13 To assist in managing development and helping maintain the vital synergy between farming and conservation and positive, productive relationships it is important to assist landowners and farmers in identifying ways to develop their businesses while protecting the WHS. Guidance to assist in articulating possible impacts and clarification of the evidence required to support any planning application would be helpful as would information on approaches to mitigating impact related to location, scale and design. A clear process for engaging with statutory and non-statutory curators would assist both developers and planners to identify possible solutions. This could be form part of a planning guidance in the form of an SPD or equivalent for the WHS.

Photomontage prepared as part of pre-application planning discussions for a grain store at Avebury


89

Replacement dwellings

7.4.14 Another area of increased pressure particularly in Avebury is the challenge of replacement dwellings. There have been a number of significant applications since 2010. Where these proposals, for example, substantially exceed the original in scale and/or radically alter the design and materials they may negatively impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. To assist in reaching acceptable solutions additional guidance should be provided on the nature of unacceptable impacts and how to avoid them. Insensitive developments in Conservation Areas have the potential to harm their relationship to the wider landscape and attributes of OUV. This too should form part of the WHS SPD or appropriate planning guidance.

Issue 6: The significant relationship of the historic built environment to the attributes of OUV including that set out in Conservation Area Statements could be damaged by inappropriate development

Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

7.4.15 Within the WHS and its setting and particularly at Avebury the historic built heritage, including a range of vernacular buildings, is of great interest and importance, especially in the light of its juxtaposition with the prehistoric monuments.

7.4.16 Both the villages of Avebury and West Kennett are designated as Conservation Areas. Specific development control policies are contained within the Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 58: Ensuring the conservation of the historic environment. The policy states that the special character or appearance of Conservation Areas and their settings will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced. The Conservation Area Statements published by Kennet District Council in 2003 for Avebury and West Kennett highlight the important interrelationship between the development of these historic villages and the prehistoric monuments within the WHS. The Statements also outline priorities and opportunities for enhancement of the built environment.

7.4.17 There are 84 Listed Buildings within the Avebury part of the WHS and development management focuses on retaining their architectural or historic interest and their setting through the requirement for Listed Building Consent (LBC) from Wiltshire Council. Many of the local buildings have been in part constructed from broken sarsen stones taken from the stone circles and avenues.

7.4.18 Issues can arise when there are applications for replacement dwellings within a Conservation Area or an application is made for an area outside the WHS but within its setting. Inappropriate development in this area can have a negative impact on the relationship of the historic built heritage to the WHS and its attributes of OUV. To reduce this it would be helpful to articulate, as part of the WHS planning guidance or SPD, how the built environment relates to the WHS and its attributes of OUV and provide guidance on how harm could be avoided through appropriate location, scale and design for replacement dwellings or other buildings. With the removal of limits of development on some villages in the Wiltshire Core Strategy this guidance will be particularly pertinent.

Issue 7: The need to manage potentially damaging activities within the WHS which are not normally subject to planning control such as agricultural developments, utility installations and micro-generation

Potentially harmful permitted development

7.4.19 There are currently a number of activities which are potentially damaging to archaeological remains, their setting and the setting of the WHS but do not require planning permission or other forms of consent. The limited Article 4 Direction at Stonehenge and new inclusion of WHSs as Article 1(5) land do not combat these risks. These activities include:

New planting not funded by the Forestry Commission, and not requiring consent by them as afforestation in a WHS

Hedge removal not covered by the Hedgerows Act or hedge planting

New ploughing or increased ploughing depth on land which is not scheduled

Utility installations on land which is not scheduled Metal detecting or treasure hunting on land which is

not scheduled, not in the ownership of the National Trust or the Ministry of Defence, and not on known archaeological sites within areas covered by Stewardship agreements

Swimming pools below a certain size New permitted development rights related to micro-

generation such as ground source heat pumps.

Installation of utilities

7.4.20 There is particular concern that measures should be taken to avoid or mitigate potential damage caused by the maintenance and installation of essential services (gas, water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications). Telecommunication masts and overhead transmission lines may not require planning permission. The digging


of holes and trenches for underground pipes and cables has affected parts of the WHS in the past, and has the potential to cause archaeological damage. The roll out of superfast broadband may be a current issue. Providers should discuss with curators how to mitigate any impact on WHS and its attributes of OUV. In many cases setting and landscape enhancements can be achieved through careful partnership to plan route, establish appropriate methodologies a sensitive design and placement of related equipment.

Metal detecting

7.4.21 Potential damage from the uncontrolled use of metal detectors is also a cause for concern. Metal detectorists and casual fieldwalkers have made a number of important finds in the area in the past. However, these are often made without the full and reliable recording of their archaeological context. When this is the case, it diminishes our understanding of the artefact and its context, and can also lead to the damage or destruction of archaeological features. Although metal detecting can be a useful technique when used as part of a properly conducted archaeological project, its uncontrolled use within the WHS should be discouraged. This is discussed further at Section 8.2.12 (Conservation).

7.4.22 Further Article 4 Directions may be necessary to control these activities.

Article 4 Directions

7.4.23 To address damage from activities that do not require planning permission it will be advisable to review the current risks and identify any Article 4 Directions that need to be put in place to protect the WHS; inclusion in Article 1(5) restricts only certain specific small-scale development rights. The PPG accompanying the NPPF suggests that if the protection provided by Article 1(5) land is inadequate, which it appears to be at Stonehenge and Avebury, that planning authorities restrict development further by using Article 4 and Article 7 (minerals operations) directions under the 1995 Order. The process for putting in place Article 4 directions has been made more streamlined and should now be less time consuming. (Policy 1d/Action 8)

7.4.24 A complementary measure during the process of review and application or where these directions are not considered appropriate is to work closely with the community and utilities’ providers to encourage them to consult with the County Archaeologist and the WHS Coordination Unit for advice. A code of practice for utility companies was prepared for Avebury in 1998

and this should be updated if necessary to include Stonehenge. The community could be reached through the Megalith newsletter or other communications tool. It is very important to work with landowners, farmers and householders to enable them to understand the sensitivities prior to applications being submitted. Pre-application advice can also help to identify workable solutions that meet the applicant’s needs without compromising the WHS and its attributes of OUV. (Policy 1d/Action 10)

Issue 8: The need to ensure understanding of the spatial implications of OUV are understood and adequate weighting is given to them, particularly where staff changes take place or resources are reduced

Training for planners

7.4.25 One of the major challenges related to the severe reduction in funding for local authorities from central government is the impact on the availability of resources. Further cuts are planned for 2015. Reduction in funding may impact on the number of planning policy officers available to work on the production of a SPD and also on the number of planning officers responsible for development management. In addition, increased workload, redundancies and restructuring can result in changes to personnel and a loss of officers experienced in dealing with determining applications within the WHS and its setting. It is important to ensure that officers are provided with regular training. This will help them understand the implication of WHS status and the attributes of OUV and assist them in giving the WHS the correct weighting in line with the Core Strategy that recognises the need to give precedence to the protection of the World Heritage Site and its setting to sustain its OUV. Training is also important to update existing officers and relevant councillors when there are changes in policy or guidance related to WHSs. (Policy 1d/

Action 9).

Policy 1d – Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its setting and its attributes of OUV should not be permitted

ACTIONS

8 Review the existing Article 4 Directions and update as required.

9 Regular liaison, information exchange and training for planning officers and councillors. Every two years or when new policies or guidance come into effect.

10 Raise and maintain awareness of the WHS through liaison with landowners and householders.


91

Public sector cuts: maintaining engagement

7.4.26 These impacts are also evident in other areas of the public service. Reduction in resources led to the loss of the English Heritage Stonehenge Curatorial Unit in 2012 which included a dedicated curator for the WHS as well as a research assistant. The Inspector of Ancient Monuments for Wiltshire is now required to deal with the WHS as part of the Inspector’s countywide caseload. This will inevitably lead to the need to prioritise and the danger that issues may be missed or cannot be given the time required.

7.4.27 It is common practice for English Heritage and the Archaeology Service of Wiltshire Council to be consulted by the local planning authority about applications within or around the WHS which may have an impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV and the management objectives as set out in the WHS Management Plan. Changes in call-in procedures noted at paragraph 4.2.12 above emphasise the key role of English Heritage in safeguarding the WHS and its attributes of OUV. It will be essential to ensure that this level of engagement is maintained when the New Model for English Heritage is put in place and the curatorial responsibilities transfer to Historic England. It will also be important to maintain liaison between the key curators on major applications within the WHS and its setting.

Light pollution

7.4.28 Light pollution needs to be carefully considered in relation to development or highways schemes within the WHS. It has the potential to cause harm to the setting of monuments and impact negatively on solstitial alignments, both attributes of OUV. Clear guidance for applicants and planners needs to be developed for inclusion in the agreed WHS planning guidance or SPD.

Tourist facilities and attractions

7.4.29 As discussed in Part Two, Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism) it is important that visitor numbers and movement are carefully monitored and managed to avoid negative impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV as well as the amenity of local communities. In considering the appropriateness of development related to additional tourist facilities these issues need to be carefully considered. Any such development would need to contribute to the understanding and enjoyment of the WHS as well as positively managing visitor pressure. The possibility of providing a permanent visitor facility outside the WHS as a successor to the new Visitor Centre at Stonehenge should be reviewed in the longer term if a suitable opportunity arises. (Policy 1f/Action 12)

7.4.30 Licensing authorities should only approve applications for intermittent vendors such as street traders, mobile snack bars and other licensable activities in the WHS following wide consultation and careful consideration of its impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

7.5 WHS boundary and the setting of the WHS

Aim 2: The WHS boundary should ensure the integrity

of the WHS is maintained and enhanced by including

significant archaeological features and interrelationships

that reflect the attributes of the OUV

Issue 9: The need to review the boundary of the WHS

Boundary extension at Avebury

7.5.1 The UNESCO World Heritage Committee agreed a proposed boundary extension to the Avebury half of the WHS in July 2008. The committee recognised that the extension would rationalise the WHS boundary originally drawn up in 1986, and rectify certain

Policy 1e – Minimise light pollution to avoid adverse impacts on the WHS, its setting and its attributes of OUV

ACTIONS

11 Develop guidelines building on existing evidence and guidance to avoid light pollution and negative impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV as part of the wider WHS planning guidance/SPD. Use guidance to advise on developments including highways schemes to ensure new intrusion is avoided and existing light pollution minimised. (NB impact on biodiversity interests should also be considered).

Policy 1f – Any additional tourist facilities and attractions must contribute to the understanding and enjoyment of the WHS and its attributes of OUV as well as ensuring visitor dispersal and the positive management of visitor pressures

ACTIONS

12 Review opportunity for a visitor facility outside the WHS.


important omissions and thereby improve the integrity of the WHS in line with its OUV.

7.5.2 Quantitatively, the minor boundary changes included approximately a further 307 hectares in the WHS, representing approximately 14% of the current area (7% of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites). Around 35 additional archaeological sites and monuments are now included within the new boundary, most of which are scheduled. This includes a prehistoric monumental complex; a multi-period settlement and field system complex; a well-preserved Neolithic long barrow; at least ten scheduled round barrows: and numerous linear features and enclosures. Further details can be found in section 5.5 of the Avebury Management Plan (2005).

Stonehenge Boundary Review

7.5.3 The case for revision of the boundary at Stonehenge was discussed at length in the 2000 Plan. The Plan recognised that the existing boundary was to some extent arbitrary and excluded features which, if included, might enhance the integrity of the WHS. It noted too that previous studies had been divided on whether or not the Site should be extended and concluded that the boundaries of both the Avebury and Stonehenge parts of the WHS should be addressed using the same criteria. The Plan included an Objective (no 14) that the ‘WHS Boundary should capture all significant archaeological features and landscapes related to Stonehenge and its environs’. The 2009 Plan included a policy requiring a review of the boundary (2c).

7.5.4 There are a number of minor discrepancies concerning the Stonehenge boundary requiring resolution as well as some more major issues to be considered. Minor changes such as those undertaken at Avebury can

be dealt with relatively easily – the State Party has to make a proposal to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and the Committee then takes a decision after evaluation of the proposal by ICOMOS. Significant changes affecting the definition of the OUV of the Site would at present require a full re-nomination. The Government has specifically excluded a re-nomination of the site for the foreseeable future.

7.5.5 As noted in the 2000 and 2009 Plans, similar approaches on boundary issues should be used for both parts of the World Heritage Site. At Avebury, a detailed study was carried out in 2004 prior to submission to UNESCO in 2008. A similar approach to minor changes could be adopted for the Stonehenge part of the site. The principles used in the Avebury study to develop recommendations were that the WHS boundary should as far as possible:

Remain true to the spirit of the original inscription of the Site on the World Heritage List, with its emphasis on the Neolithic and Bronze Age, megalithic and sarsen stone elements in the landscape

Not be changed unless it is perceived that the Site’s Outstanding Universal Value is not protected adequately within the existing boundary

Reflect current knowledge and understanding of the WHS and its surrounding landscape as a WHS in the 21st century as defined in the World Heritage nomination in 1986

Include physically-related archaeological features and the whole of a group of archaeological features such as burial mounds, including in particular all Scheduled Monuments

Have regard for the setting of individual monuments and groups of monuments and for their overall context in archaeological and landscape terms

Avoid changes which include inhabited villages At Stonehenge important astronomical alignments

are apparent through key sight-lines in the WHS landscape and its setting.

7.5.6 To these might be added the need to rectify the discrepancies between the mapped boundaries and written description in the original nomination dossier. An initial study similar to that carried out for Avebury in 2004 was undertaken in 2013 for Stonehenge. It remains for partners to agree on the new boundary and the scale of any extension, as well as how these will relate to the planned Setting Study for the WHS. (Policy 2a/Action 13)

East Kennet Long Barrow. Part of the WHS since the boundary extension at Avebury approved by UNESCO in 2008

© N

MR

2382

9_01

8 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


93

Issue 10: The need to improve understanding of the setting of the WHS in order to protect the WHS and its attributes of OUV

Buffer zones

7.5.7 The World Heritage Committee Operational Guidelines recommend (para 103) that ‘wherever necessary for the proper conservation of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided’. It does leave open the option that the setting of the World Heritage Site can be protected in other ways. Proposals for a buffer zone have to be approved by the World Heritage Committee following proposal by the State Party. This does not require a full re-nomination.

7.5.8 The 2005 Avebury Management Plan concluded that a ‘buffer zone needs to be defined effectively protecting

the WHS, its monuments and their landscape settings from visual intrusion and other adverse impacts’. The justification for this was to protect the landscape setting of the WHS and to provide stronger protection against inappropriate development.

7.5.9 The Stonehenge Management Plan 2000 concluded there was no compelling justification for a formal buffer zone in that part of the WHS. The 2009 Plan highlighted the discrepancy with the Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan 2005 and proposed that a joint study of the WHS as a whole could be undertaken to resolve this.

Setting of heritage assets

7.5.10 Since these discussions on the need for a buffer zone, the approach to protecting the setting of WHSs has developed. This has occurred in a climate of increasing and broadening understanding of the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage assets more generally.

7.5.11 English Heritage’s publication The Setting of Heritage

Assets (2011) which was supplemented in 201480 offered dedicated formal guidance for the first time on the concept of setting and how to manage change

Policy 2a – Propose to UNESCO a minor modification of the boundary at Stonehenge to enhance the integrity of the WHS

ACTIONS

13 Agree the extent of the modification with WHS partners following the completion of the WHS Setting Study and submit to UNESCO.

Robin Hood’s Ball named in the original nomination documentation but currently outside the WHS boundary at Stonehenge

© N

MR

2757

0_01

2 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


Heritage Site with a buffer zone or in other appropriate ways. The Guidance underlines that the setting requires protection and that it is essential that the Local Plan sets out how this will take place. The Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 59 states that this will be done by undertaking a Setting Study for the whole WHS. In addition to the effective implementation of the existing planning policy framework a Setting Study will provide further information and a preferred methodology for the assessment of proposed development for its potential impact on the WHS. For example, the immense scale of the Solstice Park distribution centre would have been more carefully assessed for its impact on the WHS if a comprehensive Setting Study had been in place. The same would have applied to Boscombe Down. The Core Strategy recognises that the setting of the WHS includes a range of elements such as views and historical, landscape and cultural relationships that is not precisely defined and will vary depending on the nature and visibility of the proposal. The negative impact of light pollution and skyglow is mentioned. It should be noted that astronomical alignments will extend beyond the WHS and form part of its setting which requires protection. The Setting Study should be adopted as an SPD or appropriate planning guidance to ensure change in the setting of the WHS is appropriately managed. (Policy 2b/Action 15)

7.5.13 There has been widespread recognition that a line on a map may not adequately reflect the setting which will vary depending on the nature and scale of the proposal put forward. There are a number of examples of setting studies for WHSs which reflect this approach notably the Saltaire World Heritage Site Environmental Capacity Study82

in the setting of heritage assets. The importance of setting for both upstanding monuments and buried archaeology was emphasised in the guidance and the concept of setting broadened to include not only the visual but the contextual and all other elements of the environment in which the asset is experienced including, for example, elements such as noise and light. The Setting of Heritage Assets expanded on the definition of setting given in Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5): ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’. This definition included the recognition that the extent of an asset’s setting is not fixed and may change as its surroundings evolve.

WHS Setting Study

7.5.12 The NPPF retains the recognition of the importance of setting and states that an asset’s ‘significance can be harmed or lost through (inappropriate) development within its setting’. The accompanying PPG, Further Guidance on World Heritage Sites 81, recognises that it may be appropriate to protect the setting of a World

Silbury Hill the largest artificial prehistoric mound in Europe

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l

Existing development within the setting of the WHS from Durrington Walls

© B

eth

Tho

mas


95

Policy 2b – Put in place appropriate additional guidance to ensure that development within the setting of the WHS protects and enhances the Site and its attributes of OUV

ACTIONS

14 Map an indicative setting area for planning management purposes as an interim measure prior to the completion of the Setting Study and related guidance.

15 Produce a WHS Setting Study to include related guidance and a methodology for assessing impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Identify and map key views between the attributes of OUV and both into and out of the WHS as part of this process. Adopt as part of wider WHS planning guidance/SPD.

West Kennet Long Barrow with Silbury Hill in the background

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l

and the Bath WHS Setting Study produced by Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) in October 2009. The latter’s contextual setting extends into Wiltshire and this is acknowledged in the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

7.5.14 This work with Bath WHS demonstrated best practice from both Wiltshire and BANES in the area of the Duty to Cooperate introduced under the Localism Act 2011. The Bath WHS Setting Study has been adopted as an SPD by BANES. The Study produced for Stonehenge

and Avebury could form part of the planned WHS planning guidance/SPD referred to in Policy 59 of the Core Strategy.

Interim indication of setting

7.5.15 While the Setting Study is developed, it may be helpful to provide an interim indication to planning management officers and administrators of the extent of the setting by providing an alert zone for consultation on significant development. (Policy 2b/Action 14)

7.5.16 The Avebury part of the WHS lies entirely within the North Wessex Downs AONB which might be considered adequate to protect its setting. However is should be noted that the AONB has its own attributes which it has a statutory duty to protect and these are largely related to conserving and enhancing the special qualities and character of the North Wessex Downs. This would not in all cases ensure the protection of the WHS whose attributes of OUV are different and therefore susceptible to different impacts.

8.0 CONSERVATION

Aim 3: Sustain the OUV of the WHS through the

conservation and enhancement of the Site and its

attributes of OUV

8.0 Introduction

8.0.1 This section considers conservation of the monuments and sites and their settings which form part of the attributes of OUV of the WHS, the wider historic environment and the natural environment.


8.0.2 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Condition Survey (2012) highlighted a number of issues related to cultivation and burrowing animals, the main two threats to the attributes of OUV. Wider protection of the WHS requires consideration of both the Site and its setting. The conservation aspects of the setting are considered in this section. The setting issues related to planning policy and development management are discussed in Section 7.0.

8.0.3 Protection of the WHS is delivered through the World Heritage Convention, the planning policy framework and the legislative protection given to individual Scheduled Monuments. A number of the records contained within the National Heritage List for England have some inaccuracies and other recently discovered monuments are not protected. This issue is considered and actions to remedy the situation set out.

8.0.4 Also included in this section are aspects of conservation related to agriculture and in particular the agri-environment schemes which have done so much to protect individual monuments and their landscape setting. Although inscribed as a cultural WHS, Stonehenge and Avebury WHS relies to a large extent on schemes aimed primarily at the conservation of the natural environment for its protection and enhancement and to enable the local community and visitors to understand and enjoy the wider landscape. This section sets out the policies and actions related to working with partners to develop strategies which will both protect the historic environment and improve biodiversity.

8.0.5 Finally, this section considers the impact of climate change on the conservation of the historic and natural environment and considers how other partner organisations manage risks within the WHS and how any gaps might be filled.

8.1 Condition of archaeological monuments and sites in the WHS

Issue 11: The damage caused to archaeological sites within the WHS by burrowing animals

Burrowing animals

8.1.1 The issue of burrowing animals and the risk they pose to fragile archaeological remains in both parts of the WHS was highlighted in the WHS Badger Survey (Natural England 2011) and the WHS Condition Survey (2012). The main species causing these problems are moles, rabbits and badgers. Moles are the commonest source of damage. However, the damage that they cause is slight in severity. Rabbits are a source of severe damage particularly to upstanding monuments. The rise in the badger population in recent years has become a major source of damage to the WHS and its attributes of OUV. The Condition Survey noted that ‘there has been a substantial increase in the incidence of damage from badgers’. In 2002 the number of monuments affected by badgers was seven, but the 2012 survey identified badger damage at 34 monuments. Of these 30 are in barrows with surface earthworks, meaning that 13% of these characteristic monuments across the WHS are suffering significant damage from this source. In short, badgers are becoming a major cause of damage to the very monuments that actively contribute to the attributes of OUV of the WHS. Monuments that have been reverted to grass to protect them are often attractive to badgers looking for setts. This amongst other issues needs to be considered in their management.

8.1.2 Badgers are protected under the Badgers Act 1992. Excavations have shown the extensive damage they can do to archaeological remains. There is general guidance from Natural England and Defra83 and English Heritage/Historic England84 on this subject. Measures to counter badger damage include their licensed removal after which vulnerable monuments are either covered with a suitable mesh or surrounded by fencing. However, none of these measures is suitable for large monuments such as hill forts, and all have considerable cost implications for large areas of land such as the WHS.

8.1.3 The territorial nature of badgers in particular means that local, small-scale solutions are generally inappropriate as they may simply cause the problem to move elsewhere. A landscape-wide burrowing animal strategy for the WHS is required to focus on how monuments can be protected from the damage caused by moles, rabbits and in particular badgers. This work should also use information supplied by the Natural England’s Badger Badger damage to barrow

© N

ick

Cro

xson

His

tori

c En

glan

d


97

Survey and the WHS Condition Survey. Updated and additional detailed survey data, for example mapping badger territories, will also be needed to help inform the strategy and develop specific solutions for the protection of the monuments. Recommendations might include legal exclusion of badgers from threatened monuments within a reasonable time period and reviewing potential alternative non-damaging locations and suitable designs for artificial badger setts. Any strategies or solutions developed should be shared and case studies written up to assist the management of archaeological landscapes elsewhere. WHS guidance and case studies for land managers and owners should also be developed using the latest research and practical experience from work within the WHS and elsewhere.

(Policy 3a/Action 16)

Issue 12: As a result of recent discoveries, there is a need to review the Scheduled Monuments and their boundaries within the WHS. A number of new sites should be scheduled, others extended and errors in Scheduling corrected

Statutory protection

8.1.4 Statutory protection only covers approximately 50% of the monuments within the WHS. There are many archaeological features which are attributes of OUV but are not Scheduled Monuments. The Condition Survey (2012) also notes that there are a number of Scheduled Monuments which are incorrectly mapped and a number of features discovered since the last Monument Mapping Project was carried out in 1999. This issue was noted in the Stonehenge 2009 Plan and should be remedied as a matter of urgency to ensure that all significant sites and monuments, particularly buried archaeology, are adequately protected. ASAHRG has noted this issue and hope to assist the Historic England Designation Team in identifying those monuments which need further investigation and designation. (Policy 3a/Action 17)

8.1.5 At the time of writing the Stonehenge 2009 Management Plan, a draft ‘Heritage Protection Bill’ was proposed which would have made changes to the statutory protection of the WHS. The Bill, however, was not included in the 2009 legislative programme. Since 2009 a number of changes have been made to the planning policy framework at a national level and these are outlined in Section 7.2 of this document. However, since 2009 there have been no substantive changes in the legislation to protect Scheduled Monuments. The questions remain at a national level of whether there is justification for revoking the current Class Consents for continued ploughing for certain sites and whether there should be further protection for certain types of sites

such as surface artefact scatters which are currently not included under the Ancient Monuments Act 1979 as amended in 1983.

Issue 13: The conservation of designated elements of the historic environment

Conservation of other parts of the historic

environment

8.1.6 There are a number of other notable historic assets within the WHS which – although not attributes of the Site’s OUV – also require conservation. Many of these, including most of the Listed Buildings, are in private ownership and it is in the owner’s interest to keep them well maintained. Grants may be available from the local planning authorities and Historic England for the most urgent and important of repairs.

8.1.7 Sometimes, the values related to various parts of the historic environment may be in conflict. For example, as a general rule, it is not good practice to have trees within hillforts or on their ramparts because of the damage this may cause. However, the planting at Vespasian’s Camp is an integral part of the historic Grade II* park and garden of Amesbury Abbey, and has a historic value in its own right. A large area of the Henge is within the Avebury Conservation Area which contains a number of buildings listed on the National Heritage List for England although there is little conflict in the conservation of these assets. Consideration needs to be given to identifying local historic assets within the WHS in need of repair or change, agreeing programmes of work, and then setting them in hand. Identifying local historic assets could be carried out by volunteers following training by the appropriate authority and any remedial work by the landowners agreed as appropriate.

Heritage at Risk

8.1.8 Historic England produces a Heritage at Risk Survey each year which can be accessed online.85 The Heritage at Risk Register records Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments and is updated annually by the Heritage at Risk team within Historic England. In the 2013 Register there is one Heritage at Risk 2014 South West


Listed Building (Gay’s Cave and Diamond at Amesbury Abbey) and 42 Scheduled Monuments at risk within the WHS, mostly from cultivation. It is important to note that these are only the Scheduled Monuments and there are many more undesignated archaeological features within the WHS which are not recorded in this way but of equal significance and equally at risk from cultivation and other impacts.

8.2 Monument management

Issue 14: Enhancing management arrangements for monuments and sites in the WHS

Managing in partnership

8.2.1 The management of the monuments of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is a complex issue with multiple ownership and responsibility. Only a small number of monuments are in the care of the State as ‘Guardianship’ monuments (Stonehenge, Durrington Walls (part), Woodhenge, Avebury Henge and Stone Circles, West Kennet Avenue (part), Silbury Hill, West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary and Windmill Hill). The remainder of the monuments are in private hands. Some are protected by being ‘scheduled’ and others are not scheduled and have no statutory protection.

8.2.2 The vast majority of monuments are managed by private land owners with some support through agri-environment schemes. All Historic England ‘section 17’ Management Agreements, which provided payments for the positive management of Scheduled Monuments, have now lapsed within the WHS. This mechanism may be appropriate in some cases in the future, particularly where agri-environment schemes are not possible. Whatever mechanisms are used, the effective partnership which exists between Historic England, Natural England, the County Archaeology Service of Wiltshire Council, and the WHS Coordination Unit needs to continue in order to provide the best protection and use of available resources to maintain and enhance the attributes of OUV.

Local Management Agreements

8.2.3 English Heritage and the National Trust work together closely in both parts of the WHS and in particular at Avebury where a Local Management Agreement (LMA) is in place. English Heritage and the National Trust share the costs of the conservation work carried out by the National Trust on monuments held in Guardianship. This LMA has worked successfully over recent years.

To remain effective continuing partnership working is required and the LMA needs to be re-negotiated in a timely fashion in order to ensure the best protection for Guardianship monuments.(Policy 3a/Action 26)

Issue 15: There is a need to repeat the monument condition survey of all sites on a regular basis, building on the established methodology. This should include accurate monitoring of erosion rates for sites in cultivation

WHS Condition Survey

8.2.4 A condition survey is a ‘snapshot’ of the monuments of the WHS and provides a valuable management tool to help prioritise work. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Monument Condition Survey86 was carried out in 2010. Following a review of methodologies used in previous condition surveys an agreed approach was developed that would provide a baseline to compare against in future surveys. The background is discussed in Section 2.0 of the Condition Survey 2012. In the case of Avebury a number of monuments were surveyed for the first time following the minor boundary change approved by the World Heritage Site Committee in 2008.87 Some 1,002 monuments were surveyed (341 Avebury, 661 Stonehenge) and reviewed against the two separate condition surveys for Avebury (1999) and Stonehenge (2002).

8.2.5 The summary of the Condition Survey (2012) noted that: ‘The survey revealed a positive change to the overall condition of monuments with increases in the number of monuments recorded as fair and poor with a decrease in monuments considered to be of very bad condition.’ It goes on to report: ‘This analysis is confirmed by the broad stability of good and fair monuments. The majority (87%) of good monuments are stable with no monuments undergoing moderate or rapid deterioration.’ This reflects a great deal of positive management by the partners of the WHS of the attributes of OUV within both parts of the WHS.

Undertaking the Condition Survey in 2010

© W

esse

x A

rcha

eolo

gy


99

8.2.6 The results of the Condition Survey show that the main threats to the archaeological features of the WHS in order of severity are: cultivation, burrowing animals, vegetation and erosion, particularly from vehicles.

8.2.7 The Condition Survey report was widely circulated to key partners within the WHS to enable them to use the information to prioritise repair and maintenance work within their estates. Further work should be undertaken to use the information contained within the Condition Survey to target areas or look at landscape-scale solutions to the issues that threaten the condition of the archaeological remains within the WHS. (Policy 3a/Action 18)

8.2.8 The WHS Condition Survey should be carried out at least every 10 years to provide monitoring information on the condition of the archaeological remains within the WHS over time. It is essential that the information gained is shared with the relevant partners working within the WHS and used proactively to target available funds. (Policy 3b/Action 27)

Issue 16: Conservation statements should be produced and implemented for all the major monuments, incorporating the archaeological interests as a basis for sustainable visitor management

Conservation statements

8.2.9 Conservation statements are concise management documents presenting the current understanding of a site, its significance and its conservation issues. A conservation statement for Stonehenge and its immediate environs is in the final stages of completion by English Heritage at the time of writing this management plan. This statement will help to prioritise any immediate conservation issues and to identify future management actions. (Policy 3a/Action 22)

8.2.10 A conservation statement for each individual monument or groups of monuments would assist in identifying key actions and priorities. Writing conservation statements for every monument will be a huge task. Plans for monuments currently in the guardianship of the State should be prioritised during the lifetime of this management plan. A schedule for the completion of conservation statements of Scheduled Monuments and the remaining undesignated attributes of OUV within the WHS should be agreed by the relevant partners and landowners. (Policy 3a/Action 19)

Utility companies

8.2.11 Many utility services are buried underground and from time to time repairs or renewals need to be undertaken. Guidelines have been agreed by utility companies with the WHS for more extended consultation than would be normal in less sensitive areas. These guidelines should be reviewed to ensure that they are up to date for both parts of the WHS and that the utility companies are fully aware of the sensitivities of the WHS. The County Archaeology Service for Wiltshire, WHS Coordination Unit and Historic England work together to share information and ensure that all parties are aware of works taking place within the WHS and that any impact, particularly on below-ground archaeology, is carefully considered before proceeding with any works. (Policy 3a/Action 20)

Metal detecting

8.2.12 Metal detecting can be useful as part of well thought through archaeological research projects. The risks posed by unauthorised metal detecting on any archaeological site is well documented. The use of metal detectors within a WHS is not illegal, although it is the subject of criminal law under certain circumstances. For example, under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, it is illegal to use a metal detector on a Scheduled Monument without a ‘Section 42’ licence from Historic England. Moreover, artefacts must not be removed from land without the landowner’s permission, and all finds of Treasure (as detailed by the 1996 Treasure Act) must be reported to a coroner within 14 days. The National Council for Metal Detecting has its own Code of Conduct to guide the responsible use of metal detectors. The National Trust does not permit the use of metal detectors on its land unless as part of an approved archaeological project. Permission is also required by Natural England for metal detecting on a known archaeological site included within a Countryside or Environmental Stewardship Scheme. The use of metal detectors is prohibited on MoD land. A Finds Liaison Officer for Wiltshire, based at the Salisbury Museum, is building better lines of communication between archaeologists and detectorists, which has helped to increase the reporting of archaeological finds. In all other areas metal detecting should only be carried out with the permission of the landowner. It is important that the WHS Coordination Unit works with landowners to discourage metal detecting in the WHS to prevent the loss of important evidence. Where unauthorised metal detecting takes place the WHS


partners should work with landowners and the local police to discourage this. (Policy 3a/Action 21)

Issue 17: Damage is evident on rights of way within the WHS which are used by a combination of pedestrian and motorised vehicles, and where these routes pass through areas of chalk grassland vegetation

Visitor and vehicle damage

8.2.13 The impact of vehicles on visible and buried archaeology can be severe particularly during periods of poor weather conditions. In the Condition Survey

ACTIONS

16 Produce a landscape-scale WHS Burrowing Animal Strategy using latest evidence and information from the 2010 WHS Condition Survey and Badger Survey. Develop good practice guidance and example case studies to encourage a landscape-scale approach building on existing studies. Identify priority actions.

17 Undertake a review of Scheduled Monuments and current undesignated monuments which are of potential national importance with a view to prioritising and developing proposals for a designation review.

18 Use Condition Survey to identify and prioritise works for continued targeted management and conservation work to mitigate negative impacts from cultivation, burrowing animals, stock, scrub and vehicle and visitor erosion. (Arable reversion opportunities mapping related to minimising damage from cultivation).

19 Prepare (or update where existing) conservation statements for all guardianship and other major sites.

20 Review guidelines for utility companies working within the WHS and its setting. Liaise with companies to ensure guidelines are adhered to

21 Work with landowners to discourage metal detecting within the WHS and develop WHS policy.

Policy 3a – Manage the WHS to protect the physical remains which contribute to its attributes of OUV and improve their condition

Stonehenge

22 Finalise and publish English Heritage’s Stonehenge Conservation Statement (2015) and implement recommendations. Undertake a risk assessment to assess the susceptibility of stone carvings and dressing to damage. Design appropriate monitoring indicators

23 Design and implement management system on Byway 12 to prevent damage to both surface archaeology and buried archaeology

24 Divert access track currently running across Cursus long barrow to avoid damage

Avebury

25 Design and implement management system on the Ridgeway National Trail to prevent damage to both surface and buried archaeology. Produce case study/standards guidance applicable to other archaeologically sensitive locations.

26 Local Management Agreements (LMA) will be renewed on time with adequate funding to facilitate best practice conservation and management.

(2012) it was noted that instances of vehicle damage have increased from previous surveys. There were vehicle impacts recorded on 29 monuments at Stonehenge and 23 at Avebury. These are divided into damage on tracks and ad hoc damage within fields. Particular areas of concern are monuments on Byway 12 in Stonehenge at Normanton Down and elsewhere, the long barrow crossed by an access track on the Cursus, and on the Ridgeway and Green Street in Avebury. Damage has also been recorded along the B4003 at Avebury. These issues are dealt with in Section 11.0 on Roads and Traffic. A review of the impact of vehicle damage should be undertaken and a prioritised schedule of works developed to reduce or remove the impact of vehicle erosion on the attributes of OUV. Multiple owners and responsible authorities mean that a partnership approach is essential to achieve successful outcomes. (Policy 3a/Actions 23, 24, 25)

8.2.14 Damage caused by footfall, particularly at Avebury, has been a concern for some time. However, the Condition Survey (2012) notes that at Avebury: ‘Damage as a result of visitor pressures affects just 1% of monuments, down from 2% and the trend at Stonehenge is also down.’ The effect of the new

Vehicle damage on the Ridgeway within the WHS

© S

teve

n Ta

bbitt


101

Visitor Centre at Stonehenge on changes to footfall and possible damage should be carefully monitored by English Heritage and the National Trust and action taken as appropriate. The management of visitors around the WHS is discussed further in Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism).

Issue 18: Monitoring, maintaining and improvement of the condition of archaeological remains within the WHS

Monitoring

8.2.15 The condition of the archaeological sites and monuments is monitored in a number of ways:

The carrying out of surveys both by individual landowners and landscape wide such as the WHS Condition Survey

Monitoring by landowners including the National Trust

Through Higher Level Stewardship scheme and SSSI after care visits

By the Historic England Heritage at Risk Project Officer (formerly Historic Environment Field Advisers).

8.2.16 Despite the frequent and ongoing work undertaken by the partners throughout the WHS there are a number of monuments that are not monitored as regularly as would be desirable for the proactive management of archaeological remains. The Condition Survey, as already noted, only provides a snapshot at one point in time. Historic England employs a Heritage at Risk Projection Officer (HARPO) to monitor the Heritage at Risk for Wiltshire, Swindon and parts of Somerset. This is a considerable reduction on the previous arrangement where a Historic Environment Field Adviser (HEFA) covered just the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS, albeit on a part time basis. More proactive monitoring would enable WHS partners to make more informed management decisions to minimise harm to the attributes of OUV.

8.2.17 The reduction in resources for both the public and charitable sector means that alternative means to increase monitoring of the WHS monuments need to be explored. In particular, the use of volunteers should be investigated. Appropriate training would need to be provided to ensure accuracy and consistency, along with a suitable reporting mechanism. Examples of schemes established elsewhere include the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales National Parks.88

Monitoring indicators

8.2.18 Monitoring indicators were included in both the Avebury 2005 and the Stonehenge 2009 Plans but they have not yet been consistently applied. These monitoring indicators should be reviewed by relevant partners for both parts of the WHS and reporting procedures agreed to ensure the WHS maintains an up to date picture of the condition and emerging threats to the WHS and its attributes of OUV to enable timely management decisions. (Policy 3b/Action 27, 28, 29)

Laser scan survey

8.2.19 Archaeologists are increasingly using technology to learn more about archaeological features both visible and buried. English Heritage carried out a detailed laser scan survey in 2011/12 of the Stonehenge stone circle. This digitally mapped the surface of all stones of the Stonehenge circle and provides a clear picture of wear on the monument since its construction. The results of this survey have informed the development of English Heritage’s Stonehenge Conservation Statement (2014) which sets out the conservation principles for the monument and its immediate environs and will inform management decisions made by English Heritage. It is anticipated that repeat laser scan surveys will be carried out at regular intervals in order to assess any negative impacts on the monument over time.89 Monitoring indicators to assess the condition of the stone carvings and evidence of stone dressing need to be designed.

Policy 3b – Review regularly the condition and vulnerability of all archaeological sites and monuments throughout the WHS to guide management actions and future priorities

ACTIONS

27 Undertake repeat WHS-wide Condition Survey using as a basis the methodology established in the 2010 Survey.

28 Review WHS monitoring indicators and agree a reporting procedure with relevant partners.

29 Review headline priorities on an annual basis for conservation works in response to WHS monitoring indicators. Report to WHSCs and WHSPP.


8.3 The setting of the WHS and its attributes of Outstanding Universal Value

Issue 19: There should be an appropriate setting for the WHS and its attributes of OUV

The setting of the WHS

8.3.1 The setting of the WHS is characterised by a rolling open landscape which is particularly sensitive to development.

8.3.2 At Stonehenge, with the exception of the grassland areas in and around key monuments, the landscape of the WHS is more or less wholly farmed with extensive areas of very large arable fields. There are also limited (but visually prominent) areas of woodland. Principal features of the landscape include the distinctive ridgelines with their concentrations of visible archaeological remains, including the Stones themselves, and dry valleys which cut deeply into the surrounding downland. The strongly contrasting slopes and floodplain of the River Avon form the eastern boundary of the WHS and contain distinctive historic buildings and villages.

8.3.3 At Avebury the WHS is a mosaic of landscapes which includes a number of settlements indicating its long

history of occupation. As at Stonehenge principal features of the landscape include the distinctive ridgelines with their concentrations of visible archaeological remains. Another distinctive feature is the sarsen stones which have been worked for millennia for the construction of monuments and buildings. The Avebury landscape contains dry valleys, a river valley – the Kennet – and the winterbourne valley whose stream is entirely dependent on the height of the water table in the porous chalk sub-soil. Avebury is towards the north-western edge of the North Wessex Downs AONB.

8.3.4 The landscape character of the WHS is described further in Part One, Section 2.2 and 2.5 above. More information can be found in the National Character Areas90 developed by Natural England, the North Wessex Downs AONB Landscape Character Assessment and the Wiltshire Historic Landscape Characterisation project currently underway.

8.3.5 Both halves of the WHS share the key aspects of the relationship between monuments and sites and the landscape which include:

The location of prehistoric barrow groups along visually prominent ridgelines alongside and visible from river courses

Strong visual relationships between each of the other principal archaeological sites

Landscape setting of West Kennet Long Barrow looking towards the Sanctuary

© B

eth

Tho

mas


103

The change in viewpoints of key monuments such as Stonehenge and Silbury Hill which suggest that anticipation and expectation in the form of views and movement towards monuments may have been an important element of historic ceremonies and rituals.

At Stonehenge important astronomical alignments are apparent through key sight-lines in the WHS landscape and its setting

8.3.6 The WHS is inscribed as a Cultural World Heritage Site. There have been discussions in the past about the possibility of looking for a redesignation of Stonehenge and Avebury WHS as a Cultural Landscape. This idea is no longer current due to the cost of redesignation and because the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 2013 (Statement of OUV) recognises that the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS are ‘landscapes without parallel’ and greater emphasis in the Statement of OUV has been placed on the landscape values of the WHS. Although the WHS remains a Cultural WHS this in no way implies that it sits in isolation from the natural environment that surrounds it. The close relationship of the historic and natural environments at Stonehenge and Avebury has been reflected for many years in the close partnership between the WHS landowners and managers and Natural England in managing the Site.

8.3.7 The main pressures on the landscape continue to include development and changes in land use which can alter or even destroy these often subtle, but important visual and contextual relationships. Such relationships are in themselves attributes of the OUV of the WHS. Improved understanding of these relationships enhances enjoyment of a visit to the WHS as a whole, rather than limiting experience to key monuments such as the Henge at Avebury and the Stones at Stonehenge and a few set-piece viewpoints. The mechanisms for managing the pressures of development are outlined in Section 7.0 (Planning and Policy).

8.3.8 The WHS represents just two areas of Wiltshire. The county contains an abundance of archaeological remains and monuments, some of which are nationally significant and belong to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. This provides a wealth of questions about the shaping of the landscape by our prehistoric ancestors and should be reflected in the emerging Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Research Framework, see Section 12.0 (Research). The WHS Setting Study discussed in Section 7.0 (Planning and Policy) should consider the wider context within which the WHS sits and may help to inform the WHS boundary review at Stonehenge.

Historic Landscape Characterisation

8.3.9 An Historic Landscape Characterisation assessment (HLC) is currently being carried out by Wiltshire Council with funding from Historic England. This project is due for completion in 2015. This HLC is being carried out for the whole of Wiltshire but case studies of both parts of the WHS will be finished by the time this Management Plan is published. This assessment will deepen understanding of how the present landscape character of the WHS relates to its historic usage and development and inform management decisions and planning policies. (Policy 3c/Action 30)

8.3.10 In previous Management Plans for both Stonehenge and Avebury there have been a number of attempts to assess the relative sensitivity of known archaeological remains in the WHS to visual impact. The intervisibility of sites is an important attribute of the OUV which should be maintained and protected. Improvements in technical capabilities have meant that this can be graphically represented more easily. This is reflected in Maps 11 and 22; however, any map can only provide a limited indication of possible issues or areas of concern. Any new development needs to be carefully considered on an individual basis to assess its impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

WHS Setting Study

8.3.11 A Setting Study of the WHS (see Section 7.5.12) will allow planners and developers to more fully appreciate the impact of development on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. At Stonehenge, the important solstitial alignments explored by archaeo-astronomers both within and outside the WHS boundary should be taken into account in the production of the Setting Study for the WHS.

8.3.12 There are issues of setting not only for the WHS as a whole but also for individual attributes of OUV. The issues around setting of monuments and sites and its impact on their significance is discussed at Section 7.5.11 above. Some key monuments would benefit from an improvement in their setting to enhance the visitor experience and understanding of their significance. In many cases this enhancement would include the removal of modern intrusions. For example, a partnership approach would benefit the setting of Durrington Walls/Woodhenge. Multiple owners and changes in the road network have resulted in an unsatisfactory arrangement for this area. The discoveries made during the Stonehenge Riverside Project (2005–8) have led to an increased interest from


visitors and the improvements in the interpretation scheme at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and across the landscape have added to this interest. The landscape setting of these important monuments is poor. There is a small car park close to the monuments and the site is bisected by Fargo Road leading from the A345 to Larkhill. The former road bed of the A345 still crosses Durrington Walls. This area is owned and managed by a number of partners. A feasibility study for improvements to this area was undertaken in 2006 but no firm plans have been developed. A working group of relevant partners together with the local community is required to find solutions for the enhancement of this location and the setting of the monuments.( Policy 3c/Action 36)

8.3.13 At Avebury, the area around Overton Hill, the Sanctuary and the start of the Ridgeway National Trail would similarly benefit from a review of current arrangements to benefit the setting of those monuments and improve the visitor experience. (Policy 3c/Action 40)

WHS Landscape Strategy

8.3.14 The wider context of the WHS within the natural landscape is an important consideration. The WHS lies at the heart of England’s chalk downland landscape, the ‘Wiltshire Chalk County’. The WHS straddles Salisbury Plain, the largest tract of chalk grassland in North-West Europe, and is situated between the North Wessex Downs AONB to the east and the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB to the south and west. The role of the WHS as a window to both the wider historic and natural landscapes should thus be recognised, valued and reflected in future management and advocacy.

8.3.15 Continuing developments in the science of environmental archaeology means that we are increasing our understanding of what the natural environment of the WHS was like in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, though we can never return to an authentic prehistoric landscape. However, opportunities do arise with changes of ownership, priorities and agendas to take steps to improve the landscape setting of the WHS. A WHS Landscape Strategy is required to articulate the landscape-scale aspirations for the WHS. This would reflect information from the WHS Woodland Strategy (2015), WHS Condition Survey (2012), the emerging WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy, National Character Areas developed by Natural England, the Historic Landscape Characterisations completed by the AONBs and Wiltshire Council and any WHS Setting Study. A WHS Landscape Strategy should consider new developments such as the new Visitor Centre at Stonehenge and its impact and whether any additional screening or other mitigation might be appropriate. This study should consider whether light pollution is an issue and if so how it can be addressed. (Policy 3c/Action 35) As our understanding of the historic landscape increases new challenges will emerge in relation to its management. (Policy 3c/Action 32)

Roads and setting

8.3.16 The issue of traffic and transport is dealt with in detail in Section 11.0. Roads undoubtedly affect the setting of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Both Avebury and Stonehenge are bisected by major roads, the A4 and A303 respectively. These not only make exploring the WHS difficult but affect the setting of monuments such as Silbury Hill, Stonehenge and the barrows on King Barrow Ridge. The B4003 runs along and across the West Kennet Avenue. Vehicles travelling along this road both affect the setting of the West Kennet Avenue and despite efforts to mitigate it, cause damage to the fragile archaeological remains in its verges. (Policy 3c/Action 37)

Vehicle travelling along B4003

© C

olin

She

ll

© B

eth

Tho

mas

Durrington Walls information point


105

Aircraft and setting

8.3.17 The setting of the WHS includes all aspects of the environment in which the attributes of OUV are experienced. Low flying by aircraft (including drones, helicopters, microlights and similar aircraft, and the launching of hot air balloons) represents an intrusion in the setting and detracts from the WHS Vision of a rural and tranquil environment for the WHS and should be avoided. The WHS Coordination Unit should look for opportunities to work with civilian and military partners to avoid over flying the WHS. Overflying may be necessary for some types of conservation and research projects eg Lidar surveys. (Policy 3C/Action34)

Modern clutter

8.3.18 Street furniture, signage and advertisements are all part of normal daily life but ill thought out street furniture, banners and signage can be intrusive. Modern clutter should be kept to a minimum and location and design should be carefully considered. Where planning permission is required this should be reflected in any decisions. Intrusions which do not expressly require planning permission or other consent, especially those within the setting of monuments and sites, should be avoided. This should be dealt with at a local level by parish and town councils. (Policy 3c/Action

34)

Restoration and reconstruction

8.3.19 On occasion questions are raised about whether monuments should be restored or reconstructed. This issue is a sensitive one and there are a number of differing viewpoints. Debate on the subject is closely linked to the issue of authenticity, a key criterion of OUV. There is a range of international guidance on the matter. The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, The Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964) remains, despite its vintage, a valuable guide providing a flexible framework that allows for professional analysis of individual cases. In addition relevant guidance is provided at a national level in documents such as English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008). The need for a specific WHS policy should be considered to allow future queries to be dealt with in a coherent and consistent manner by the appropriate bodies involved. Currently at Avebury, English Heritage is working with the National Trust on a project to restore and improve the failing conservation measures installed in the 1950s at the West Kennet Long Barrow. WHS partners should consider the requirement for specific policies for archaeological reconstruction and restoration within the WHS. (Policy 3c/Actions 33, 38)

Policy 3c – Maintain and enhance the setting of monuments and sites in the landscape and their interrelationships and astronomical alignments with particular attention given to achieving an appropriate landscape setting for the monuments and the WHS itself

ACTIONS

30 Produce WHS HLC case studies based on Wiltshire Council HLC to inform WHS Landscape Strategy.

31 Identify key views between the attributes of OUV and both into and out of the WHS. Identify key astronomical alignments.

32 Produce a WHS Landscape Strategy to articulate a landscape-scale aspiration for the WHS. Informed by the WHS Woodland Strategy, Chalk Grassland Strategy and the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan amongst other relevant documents.

33 Review the need for a specific policy on archaeological restoration and reconstruction in the WHS.

34 Work with planners and parish/town councils to reduce advertisements, banners and signage within the WHS both through the planning process and where formal planning permission is not required. Work with civilian and military partners to avoid overflying the WHS.

Stonehenge

35 Undertake a review of impacts (including visual) of Visitor Centre and associated development on the WHS landscape. Reflect results in WHS Landscape Strategy.

36 Agree and implement actions to improve the setting and integrity of Woodhenge and Durrington Walls.

Avebury

37 Reduce the intrusion of the B4003 and traffic on the West Kennet Avenue. Halt road-edge erosion of scheduled areas and manage parking.

38 Replace 1950s conservation measures at West Kennet Long Barrow to improve condition and integrity of the monument with a less intrusive design and materials.

39 Lessen intrusion in the setting of Silbury Hill, the Sanctuary and Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery along the A4 from roads and traffic

40 Improve setting of the Sanctuary and Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery. Remove scrub and trees and manage recent hedgerow planting to restore the silhouette of barrows from the east.


Undergrounding cables

8.3.20 Cables and pylons for electricity or telecommunications are often visually intrusive in the landscape. The wish to improve the setting of monuments and the wider WHS landscape and the further knowledge that might be gained from any excavation should be balanced against any potential damage to buried archaeology. Excellent partnership working resulted in a project to bury cables underground and remove modern clutter from the landscape at Overton Hill in Avebury in 2010. Opportunities for further undergrounding of cables should be identified in both parts of the WHS so that the Coordination Unit can respond when funds are available in the future. (Policy 3d/Action 41)

Impact of fences and other structures on monuments

8.3.21 The Condition Survey notes that in the Stonehenge part of the WHS there is some inappropriate fencing cutting across monuments or not encompassing the entire monument. A great deal of work has been undertaken by the National Trust, particularly in the Stonehenge part of the WHS around the Cursus Barrow group and the Cursus, to improve fence lines providing better protection and visibility. Wherever possible, fence lines should be removed from upstanding monuments and also provide a sufficient buffer area not only to protect the monument but also to assist in the interpretation and visibility of monuments within the landscape. (Policy 3d/Action 42)

8.3.22 At Silbury Hill, the balance between preventing access to this fragile monument with providing a suitable setting that is not marred by intrusive fencing is a difficult one. More work is required to reach a suitable solution and reduce unauthorised access to the monument. The solution will also need to ensure that the Silbury Hill SSSI can still be grazed to maintain the notified chalk grassland and associated species.


8.3.23 At Avebury, the location of the Avebury and District Club House close to the Henge detracts from the setting of the monument. Finding an alternate location would undoubtedly be difficult but this long-term aim should remain in order to take advantage of any future opportunities. (Policy 3d/Action 46)

Redundant structures

8.3.24 Structures such as the redundant sewage outfall infrastructure which cuts across the Cursus monument at Stonehenge should be removed. (Policy 3d/Action 43)

8.3.25 At Stonehenge, the Larkhill sewage works is under review due to expansion within the area controlled by the MoD. This facility sits very close to the northern boundary of the Cursus and consideration should be given in any plans to reducing the impact on the Cursus and views from Stonehenge close by. The MoD has programmed works to address this for summer 2015. (Policy 3d/Action 44)

Fencing and signage at Silbury Hill

© B

eth

Tho

mas

Policy 3d – Improve the WHS landscape by the removal, redesign or screening of existing intrusive structures such as power lines, fences and unsightly buildings where opportunities arise

ACTIONS

41 Identify intrusive power lines and seek opportunities for further undergrounding.

42 Remove redundant fences where possible and appropriate and ensure necessary fencing is maintained in a good state of repair to enhance WHS landscape.

Stonehenge

43 Remove redundant sewage outfall infrastructure from the Cursus and Stonehenge Bottom.

44 Complete planned works to reduce adverse impact of Larkhill sewage works. Look for opportunities to relocate and enhance the WHS and its setting.

Avebury

45 Review fencing to reduce visual intrusion while still providing an effective deterrent to climbing Silbury Hill and enable safe grazing of the SSSI.

46 Review opportunities for long-term relocation of Avebury and District Club House to a less sensitive position.


107

8.3.26 A good deal of ongoing work is undertaken by all partners in the WHS to control scrub and burrowing animals to protect archaeological features and to enable visitors to read and understand the landscape better. (Policy 3e/Action 47, 48, 49)

8.3.27 Some features such as the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures and parts of the Avenue at Stonehenge are invisible. Consideration needs to be given to how such features can be made more visible or interpreted to visitors more clearly. This needs to be based on the most up to date research to ensure that we have the most accurate information available. More details can be found in Section 12.0 (Research) and in the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework 2015. (Policy 3e/Action 50)

8.4 Agriculture

Issue 20: Scheduling has increased the survival rate of monuments in the WHS. However, a good proportion of Scheduled Monuments within the WHS are still adversely affected by agriculture

Agriculture

8.4.1 Whilst there has been a great deal of success in reverting arable to grassland to protect both visible and

buried archaeology, the Condition Survey 2012 noted that in terms of ongoing impacts for both sections of the WHS, cultivation of monuments remains the biggest threat. In the Stonehenge area, ongoing cultivation impacts affected 216 monuments (33%) of which 104 are scheduled. In addition there were a further 125 monuments that were cultivated of which 70%, although not scheduled, can be considered to contribute

Arable farming within the WHS. Below the Ridgeway, Avebury

Cha

rlie

Wai

te ©

K93

0754

His

tori

c En

glan

d

Policy 3e – Conserve and/or make more visible buried, degraded or obscured archaeological features within the WHS without detracting from their intrinsic form and character

ACTIONS

47 Continue and carry out additional scrub control and manage woodland and hedges to enhance landscape views.

48 Remove damaging or intrusive fences where possible to improve condition and visibility of monuments

49 Undertake appropriate management of burrowing animals with advice from NE to protect the monument without harming the setting of the affected monuments.

50 Develop a sensitive evidence based approach to enhancing the visibility of buried monuments such as the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures.


to the attributes of OUV due to the monument type and period classification. In the Avebury area, ongoing cultivation impacts affected 127 monuments (37%) of which 61 are scheduled. There are a further 66 monuments that are cultivated of which 85%, although not scheduled, can be considered attributes of OUV due to the monument type and period classification. The WHS Coordination Unit should continue to work with Natural England and landowners to seek opportunities for further reversion to grassland but it is recognised that this will not always be possible and other approaches need to be considered.

Agricultural practices impact on archaeological

features

8.4.2 Research jointly funded by English Heritage and Defra (trials to identify soil cultivation practices to minimise the impact on archaeological sites, Oxford Archaeology and Cranfield University91) has shown that even inversion tillage to a constant depth over a site where cultivation has already eradicated all upstanding earthworks will continue to erode the archaeological deposits (albeit slowly), unless a suitable soil buffer exists between the archaeology and cultivation horizons. In cases where field operations are undertaken in wet weather however, soil compaction will bring archaeological deposits into the cultivation horizon much more rapidly (and accelerate degradation and loss). In cases where cultivation is being undertaken on sites which have never been ploughed, damage will be both immediate and much greater, although this is not currently a serious problem at Stonehenge and Avebury. Factors which affect the degree of archaeological loss from continued cultivation include the local topography (sites on slopes will be more vulnerable to damage than others on flat areas, because of soil movement and the loss of buffer deposits). Similarly, soil type, rainfall and the nature of the archaeology also have a bearing upon survival and risk.

8.4.3 Historic England has recently completed its Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC) 3 project – a desktop assessment of risk and recommended mitigation/management for over 1,500 Scheduled Monuments nationally affected by cultivation (including some within the WHS). Further survey is however required within the WHS to extend this approach to undesignated archaeological sites with a view to prioritising which monuments currently in cultivation are in most urgent need of management intervention either through reversion to grassland, or in many cases simply by changing the way in which cultivation is undertaken. This might be through switching

to non-inversion minimum tillage or direct drilling techniques, or more simply still, by not sub-soiling. Other techniques might include using the latest precision farming machinery and techniques using GPS mapping to avoid archaeology. The degree of survival of remains on a specific site, and its vulnerability, could be tested using relevant field techniques, although this would be relatively time-consuming and costly given the number of monuments under cultivation within the WHS. In light of the success of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme Special Project, and the New Environmental Land Management Scheme, Defra, Natural England and the WHS Coordination unit, together with local farmers and landowners, should continue to be involved in the resolution of these complex issues.

Issue 21: Agricultural practices within the WHS – balancing the needs of farmers with those of the historic environment

8.4.4 The 2014 Phase 1 Habitat Survey demonstrated that around 75% of the WHS is in arable use.

8.4.5 On some National Trust land, there are agreements which restrict livestock numbers, ploughing depths, fertiliser application and sprays. Such restrictions also apply to some areas which are within agri-environmental schemes. Elsewhere, land managers are not required to distinguish between land within and outside the WHS. Visible archaeological features are generally not cultivated, but those which are not obvious on the surface are often cultivated in the same manner as the rest of the farm.

8.4.6 There are a number of benefits to the WHS of increasing the extent of permanent pasture for the character of the WHS. These include:

A reduction in the potential damage caused to known and unknown archaeological remains by ploughing

The Trials Project: faux archaeological deposits used to assess the effects of various cultivation practices

© O

xfor

d A

rcha

eolo

gy


109

A consistency with archaeological evidence that much of the Avebury and Stonehenge landscapes would have been grassland in the period contemporary with Stonehenge and Avebury’s use in prehistory and therefore its restoration in this area offers an appropriate land cover in historical terms

The replacement of arable crops which tend to obscure more subtle earthworks and barrows, thus hindering interpretation

The facilitation, subject to stock control, of greater public access and freedom of movement (eg permissive access is allowed on much of the National Trust’s pastures)

The potential to enhance the WHS’s nature conservation value by establishing semi-natural chalk grassland communities in a nationally important area for chalk grassland reconnection and defragmentation

The potential to enhance the visitor experience by managing and interpreting colourful wildlife-rich grasslands

The potential to enhance visual understanding of monuments invisible on the ground by, for instance, differential grass-cutting.

8.4.7 Further work is needed to seek long-term sustainable arable reversion for monuments and sites currently affected or vulnerable to cultivation. Priorities should be based on the Heritage at Risk Register, the WHS Condition Survey and the WHS arable reversion opportunities map created for both parts of the WHS which identified key areas of archaeological sensitivity within the WHS.

8.4.8 At Stonehenge, the vast majority of permanent grassland in the WHS occurs in and around Stonehenge itself. Here the National Trust and private owners have successfully converted large areas of former arable land to grassland, often with the support of agri-environmental grants. At Avebury, there are key areas of pasture on Waden Hill, the Avebury Circle, the West Kennet Avenue, Overton Hill Seven Barrows, river valley grassland, Fyfield Down (SSSI/NNR), Silbury Hill (SSSI) and Windmill Hill.

Sheep scrape

© W

esse

x A

rcha

eolo

gy

8.4.9 Many upstanding and uncultivated monuments are not otherwise managed and are viewed by some landowners as obstacles to straightforward cultivation, resulting in added costs to farmers. They then become vulnerable to scrub growth which can ultimately cause root damage and attract burrowing animals. Fences around monuments can interfere with access for maintenance mowing. Some farmers do allow grazing stock into the enclosures for a few days under good ground conditions, in order to graze off the vegetation. Deer, rabbits and hares have relatively little impact on keeping scrub growth down, though burrowing can cause problems on monuments. Initiatives such as Stock Keep or Sheep Keep, a website that aims to match livestock to grazing, could be explored.92

8.4.10 Whilst it is generally agreed that reversion to pasture is the best method to protect upstanding and buried archaeology from the impact of the plough, the use of grazing is not without its own dangers. Attention needs to be given to levels of grazing, scrapes and other issues arising from pastoral management of monuments. Work should be undertaken to develop and build on existing guidelines which help landowners and managers manage pastoral areas sustainably.93 A methodology needs to be agreed for monitoring the impact of grazing levels in advance of the next WHS Condition Survey. (Policy 3f/Action 53)

Issue 22: Defra’s agri-environmental funding is changing in 2014 and the future impact is as yet unclear

Agri-environmental land management schemes

8.4.11 The Special Project agri-environment funding which began in 2002 from Defra94 was enormously helpful in creating incentives for local farmers in both parts of the WHS and resulted in significant increases in areas taken out of the plough and reverted to pasture. In 2005, a successor Agri-Environment scheme, Environmental Stewardship, was set up which had different rules, payments and management options. Specific Historic Environment options to protect buried archaeology, similar to the CSS special project, were introduced and made available in all target areas. Many farmers have remained committed to grass reversion transferring to the successor Natural England scheme Environmental Stewardship. However buoyant cereal prices meant that farmers were faced with difficult decisions when considering whether to take up HLS schemes. Where farmers are unable or reluctant to take up agri-environment schemes other possible arrangements and sources of funding should be considered. Alternative agreements such as Heritage Partnership Agreements with Historic England should be considered.


Opportunities for funding reversion through developer funding could possibly be explored where schemes contribute to biodiversity. Protection might be achieved through encouraging best arable practice following the review of the least harmful form of cultivation with a technique such as the Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC) methodology or similar to establish the least harmful cultivation method. Guidance produced following such a review should be made available to landowners, farmers and managers. Monitoring of impact of monuments in cultivation should be included in the WHS Condition Survey to establish whether the guidance is fit for purpose. (Policy 3f/Action 55)

8.4.12 A number of agri-environmental schemes have expired since the Management Plans of 2005 and 2009. Natural England, Historic England, Wiltshire Council Archaeological Service and the WHS Coordination Unit have worked closely together to try to obtain the best result for the WHS and its attributes of OUV. In most cases farmers have entered new schemes despite uncertainty over the terms of the agri-environmental schemes due to start in 2015. However, there have been some losses in both Avebury and Stonehenge, where amongst other reasons such as change of ownership, farmers did not feel that the payments were sufficient to outweigh the potential income from arable crops following the loss of the enhanced incentives. It is important to ensure that schemes offer sufficient financial incentives.

8.4.13 A new Countryside Stewardship Scheme will be launched in 2015 as part of a European-wide review of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is currently planned that farmers and land managers can start applying for Countryside Stewardship from July 2015. Agreements and payments will begin in 2016. The priority is to deliver Biodiversity 2020 and Water Framework Directive targets. Elements to help protect the historic environment and Scheduled Monuments remain. The WHS Coordination Unit will need to work closely with Natural England, Historic England and the County Archaeology Service for Wiltshire to ensure that the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme can be used to best advantage to continue to protect the WHS and its attributes of OUV. The

Countryside Stewardship Scheme is expected to deliver multiple benefits. In the WHS there is a track record for the extension of permanent wildlife-rich grassland to deliver multiple benefits including nature conservation, amenity, archaeological conservation and landscape benefits. There is however a real risk that farmers and landowners will be reluctant to renew agreements unless economic incentives are adequate to make business sense. The WHS Coordination Unit will continue to advocate at a national level for the historic environment

Policy 3f – Encourage land management activities and measures to maximise the protection of archaeological monuments and sites as well as their settings, and the setting of the WHS itself

ACTIONS

51 Seek conversion to grassland for monuments and sites vulnerable to or currently affected by cultivation. Prioritise based on the Heritage at Risk register, the WHS Condition Survey and the WHS Arable Reversion Opportunities Mapping. The latter includes those currently unscheduled attributes of OUV. Refer to relevant documents including NWDAONB Chalk Grassland Strategy and Arable Biodiversity Strategy.

52 Seek to maintain and establish semi-natural, species-rich grassland to achieve a more appropriate landscape setting for archaeological sites and monuments.

53 Agree methodology for monitoring grazing levels on the condition of the WHS in advance of the next Condition Survey.

54 Continue to develop and improve relationships with farmers and landowners to encourage uptake of agri-environment schemes and WHS Woodland Strategy and other guidance produced. Produce leaflet, web resource or offer targeted workshops following consultation with farmers on their preferred approach to communication.

55 Explore other arrangements and sources of funding where conservation is required but agri-environment schemes may not be appropriate or taken up: (a) Encourage arable best practice. Employ the Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC) methodology or similar to establish to least harmful cultivation method. Produce guidance on arable management opportunities within the WHS. Include monitoring of impacts on monuments in cultivation in Condition Survey. (b) Encourage alternative agreements, eg Heritage Partnership Agreements between HE and landowners. (c) Identify opportunities for developer funding to contribute to biodiversity enhancements.

CAP leaflet Defra


111

and the special case of the WHS as well as the need for adequate incentives for farmers. (Policy 3f/Action 52)

8.4.14 There is some concern from farmers that schemes may restrict their ability to operate freely in the future and affect the value of their landholdings although there is no evidence of the latter. It is therefore essential to continue to develop and improve relationships with farmers in order to encourage uptake of agri-environment schemes and the recommendations of the WHS Woodland Strategy which will help to protect the attributes of OUV. Consultation should take place to establish the preferred mechanism for communication with landowners, agents and farmers to make contact easier and more open. An event could be held in each part of the WHS which would provide an opportunity for discussion between key partners within the WHS such as Natural England and Historic England, the Coordination Unit and landowners, agents and farmers. (Policy 3f/Action 54)

8.4.15 It will be considerably more difficult in the years to come to maintain current levels of grassland if funding for agri-environment schemes is further reduced and/or economic incentives for cultivation increase. Priorities for any further areas of grassland need to be assessed through the Arable Reversion Opportunities Map developed for both parts of the WHS and WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy discussed at paragraph 8.5.15. In particular, unscheduled archaeological features should be considered for inclusion in target areas.

8.4.16 The WHS Coordination Unit should continue its strong links with both Natural England and Historic England at both local and national level to make the case for the World Heritage Site as a priority area which can deliver a range of benefits including protection of the historic environment, contributing to the natural environment and in particular Biodiversity 2020 targets and public enjoyment. (Policy 3g/Action 56)

8.5 Nature conservationUnderstanding the value of conservation

within the WHS

8.5.1 The landscape biodiversity values of the WHS are discussed fully in Section 2.5.1–2.5.27.

8.5.2 The process of mapping the ecological value of the WHS can begin using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Section 2.5.13) and the 2014 Bird Survey discussed in Section 2.5.22 above as a basis. In addition, a WHS stone-curlew strategy was prepared in 2008 for Stonehenge and will be updated for the whole WHS during the course of this Plan with a view to promoting opportunities to establish further stone-curlew plots and scrapes compatible to historic interests and public access. Further information from other Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species such as bumble bees, arable plants, bats and brown hare can be added during the lifetime of the next plan so that the ecological value of the WHS can be fully understood. (Policy 3h/Action 61)

8.5.3 Farmland birds are particularly important in the WHS due to their decline nationally over the past 50 years. Species include stone-curlew, corn bunting, skylark, tree sparrow, yellow wagtail, lapwing and wintering golden plover. The River Avon SSSI/SAC is, in part, the eastern boundary of the WHS. Reversion and management as extensive grassland in the catchment will also benefit the River by reducing the potential impacts of fertiliser and other agricultural inputs and diffuse pollution. Some of the adjacent water meadows are also designated as SSSI for wet grassland and diverse plant communities, breeding and wintering waders/wildfowl and European Protected species such as Desmoulin’s whorl snail. This is in addition to the historic landscape value of the

Wildflowers on Stonehenge Down

© B

eth

Tho

mas

Policy 3g – Maintain, enhance and extend existing areas of permanent grassland where appropriate

ACTIONS

56 Establish a working group to explore the approaches to retaining previously reverted land and possible longer term funding/management agreement. Feed recommendations to Defra, NE, HE and other relevant national bodies to make the case for continued funding and targeting of the WHS using examples of achievement and multiple public benefits.


meadows and importance of the river in the Stonehenge landscape’s development. The head of the River Kennet occurs within the Avebury WHS and is an important wildlife habitat. The Avebury part of the WHS also contains lichens and mosses of national importance associated with the sarsens found on Fyfield Down SSSI/NNR and Piggledene SSSI.

8.5.4 It is important to retain the mosaic of different types of land use as this enhances its biodiversity value. Arable land is valuable as a habitat for specialist wildlife such as farmland birds, arable plants and hares. Therefore it should be an aim to balance the needs of the archaeology, habitats for rare flora, and the opportunities for farmland birds, for example by providing wild bird food cover, grass margins and fallow plots when looking at strategic locations of reversion whilst reflecting the primary significance of the site. (Policy 3h/Action 59)

Issue 23: The enhancement of the nature conservation values of the WHS

Chalk grassland

8.5.5 More than three-quarters of England’s chalk grassland heritage has been lost in the last 100 years.95 Half of that remaining – 18,000 hectares – is in Wiltshire. Both parts of the WHS play an important role as stepping stones between Salisbury Plain SAC, Parsonage Down SSSI/SAC/NNR and Porton Down SAC/SSSI, which are all key chalk grassland areas. The diversity and national importance of surviving areas of unimproved chalk grassland both in areas around the WHS and, at a much smaller scale, on barrows and steeper slopes within the WHS, provide an opportunity for downland re-creation

to link, buffer and extend the existing areas. The typical chalk grassland sward is diverse and species-rich with a mixture of grasses and herbs. The characteristic downland herb-rich flora can support a huge variety of fauna, especially butterflies, bees and other insects, and birds.

8.5.6 These areas are not only important for the high quality chalk grassland they contain but also as a possible source of seed for chalk grassland (re)creation and the enhancement of existing permanent pasture in the future. By buffering and linking the surviving fragments of chalk grassland habitat and extending the areas of recreated chalk grassland, the nature conservation value of the WHS as a whole could be enhanced. Changes in grazing management on existing grassland can also enhance the structure and value for birds and invertebrates.

8.5.7 The Environmental Stewardship Scheme and previous agri-environmental schemes have encouraged farmers to protect archaeology, encourage wildlife and maintain and enhance the landscape setting. Some areas have been reseeded with a species-rich calcareous grass and wildflower seed mix where soil nutrient levels were suitable. In others, the existing grass leys have been over sown with wild flowers. Overall the schemes aim to establish species-rich semi-natural grassland and protect historic monuments and their landscape setting.

8.5.8 Management involves extensive grazing with no fertiliser or herbicide use (except where necessary for weed control). Grazing times and duration are managed to provide a variety of sward lengths and structure, to take account of bird species and to encourage flowering

Cowslips on disc barrow

© T

racé

Will

iam

s R

SPB


113

Chalk Country project,101 the Environment Agency’s work relating to the Water Framework Directive,102 the Wildlife Trust’s Living Landscapes Initiative,103 the Marlborough Downs Nature Improvement Area (NIA)104 and the Stepping Stones105 (AONB/NE) project. It is essential that the WHS Coordination Unit engages with all relevant partners when developing programmes of work related to natural conservation in the lifetime of this plan. (Policy 3h/Action 60)

8.5.14 The most recent BAP for Wiltshire was published in 2008.106 The current thinking in the management of the natural environment is the development of landscape-scale frameworks using the evidence provided by the most recent BAP habitat and species data. The new Landscape Conservation Framework for Wiltshire and Swindon107 looks for the best opportunities for conserving and enhancing these habitats at a landscape or ecosystem scale.

WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy

8.5.15 The Wessex Chalk Forum has recently re-formed with a view to ensuring that chalk grassland initiatives are coordinated across Wiltshire and the wider Wessex area. This forum provides an opportunity for the WHS to play a part in creating important nature corridors to improve the biodiversity values of the site. During the lifetime of this Plan a small working group will develop a WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy which will identify key areas where improving or increasing chalk grassland will be beneficial to the natural environment. This will then be prioritised within the WHS where these areas will also benefit the historic environment and enhance the attributes of OUV. (Policy 3h/Action 57, 58)

Issue 24: Scrub and woodland within and around the WHS and its impact

Scrub

8.5.16 The encroachment of scrub onto monuments is a cause for concern. The Condition Survey of 2012 noted that damage from vegetation was up in both parts of the WHS (Stonehenge 2002 – 19%, 2010 – 20%; Avebury 1999 – 8%, 2010 – 12%). Scrub can damage fragile archaeological deposits through the action of roots, and can obscure earthwork sites. It should be removed wherever possible from archaeological sites, which thereafter should be kept free of scrub, usually through grazing with suitable numbers of stock. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy (2015) examined the woody growth from hedgerows to plantations across

plants. This depends on the species present and whether the sward has been botanically enhanced or whether it is currently grass-dominated semi-improved or improved grassland. There are opportunities to enhance the nature conservation of the more fertile fields over time, through the introduction of suitable plants; alternatively they can be managed to provide structurally diverse grassland for insects and birds. The re-created grasslands and enhanced semi-improved grasslands will take years to develop into diverse flower-rich grassland.

Political and environmental developments

in conservation

8.5.9 There have been a number of changes in the natural environment context since the Management Plans of 2005 and 2009.

8.5.10 In 2011 the Government released its Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) outlining its vision for the natural environment. The Government’s new biodiversity strategy Biodiversity 2020 96 emphasises the importance of landscape-scale action not just for biodiversity but also to improve the provision of ecosystem services and help us adapt to climate change. Biodiversity 2020 acts as a tool to help deliver the commitments in NEWP and sets out targets for protected sites, maintenance, reversion and creation of key BAP habitats, species conservation and emphasis on increasing people’s engagement with biodiversity issues, aware of the value and taking positive actions.

8.5.11 Biodiversity needs space, diversity and complexity if it is to thrive and this is best achieved at a landscape scale. Professor Sir John Lawton characterised this as England needing spaces for biodiversity that were ‘bigger, better and more joined-up’.97

8.5.12 One way that Natural England supports landscape-scale working is through the 159 National Character Area profiles98 which provide information, advice and guidance that can help maximise the benefits of landscape-scale working for biodiversity, communities and the economy.

8.5.13 One of the developments of the NEWP included the setting up of Local Nature Partnerships (LNP). ‘These partnerships will work at a strategic scale to improve the range of benefits and services we get from a healthy natural environment. They will aim to improve the multiple benefits we receive from good management of the land.’99 In Wiltshire, the Wiltshire and Swindon Local Nature Partnership was set up.100 The LNP works with a number of partners on landscape-wide initiatives. These include the RSPB’s Futurescape – Wiltshire


the WHS and has made a number of recommendations for works to protect the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Its recommendations should be reviewed and prioritised by a task and finish group of relevant partners. The recommendations of the WHS Woodland Strategy should also be disseminated to all landowners, farmers and managers.

8.5.17 The WHS Bird Survey carried out in 2014 demonstrated the importance of a variety of habitats in the success of the farm bird priority species in both parts of the WHS. A certain level of scrub is desirable for biodiversity and scrub removal programmes should consider this point with the relevant authorities. There is also a need to consider protected species such as nesting birds when looking at scrub works, ie undertaking clearance outside of the breeding season.

Woodland in the WHS

8.5.18 Woodland is a relatively prominent feature in the landscape of the WHS. Some of it is historic and relates to the planned landscape developed around Amesbury Abbey and Avebury Manor in the 18th and 19th centuries and on the ‘hedgehog’ barrows around Avebury, while other woodland provided coppice products. Much of the rest consists of recent plantations, often planted to screen intrusive elements in the landscape or as cover for game birds.

8.5.19 The mosaic of individual trees and/or woodland is important for wildlife because it provides the variety of habitat required to encourage species diversity.

8.5.20 All work classified as afforestation or deforestation requires consent from the Forestry Commission within a WHS if it might have a significant environmental impact, and should be notified to them. Currently English Heritage/Historic England is the statutory adviser to the Forestry Commission on Environmental Impact Assessment and Woodland Grant Scheme applications within the WHS. The new environmental land management schemes currently being developed by Defra to start in 2016 will be incorporating woodland grant and creation grant schemes and Historic England will continue to be a statutory adviser.

Woodland Strategy

8.5.21 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy was completed in 2014108. This project was managed by the National Trust and funded by Natural England. The work was carried out by Chris Blandford Associates and Wessex Archaeology. The WHS Woodland Strategy

Policy 3h – Explore and develop synergies between the historic and natural environment to benefit the WHS and the maintenance of its OUV. Maintain and enhance the overall nature conservation value of the WHS, in particular: maintain, enhance and extend the existing areas of floristically rich chalk downland turf; enhance the biodiversity of permanent grassland to extend the area of species-rich grassland and provide habitat for birds, invertebrates, bats and other wildlife. Seek opportunities for the expansion of chalk grassland where consistent with protecting the WHS to sustain its OUV and relevant biodiversity targets. Extend and seek new links with relevant conservation bodies, programmes and initiatives

ACTIONS

57 Produce WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy to be informed by the WHS Arable Reversion Opportunities mapping project and other relevant data sets. Explore wider landscape studies identifying links to other areas of chalk grassland beyond the WHS.

58 Identify opportunities for improving biodiversity of permanent grassland areas and include in WHS Chalk Grassland Strategy.

59 Continue to protect and encourage S41 Biodiversity Action Plan species such as stone-curlews through appropriate management. Seek opportunities to establish further stone-curlew plots and scrapes where they do not adversely impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV, are away from public access and within or closer to areas of species-rich grassland via review of the stone-curlew strategy.

60 Expand existing and develop new links with conservation bodies, programmes and initiatives working in and around the WHS to explore integrated management opportunities, highlight the value of the WHS, its specific management needs/constraints and joint funding projects. Look for synergies with the implementation of natural environment targeted European directives including the Water Framework and Habitat Directives and River Basin Management Plan as well as the approach to management of national natural designations such as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve (NNR) that may also benefit the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

61 Collate data from partner monitoring and produce mapping of ecological value and connectivity within the WHS and surrounding areas and incorporate into WHS GIS.


115

aims to promote a coordinated approach to woodland management that reflects the primary need to sustain and enhance the World Heritage Site, while giving due consideration to the needs of farming, nature conservation, visitor access and the local community.

8.5.22 The Strategy seeks to facilitate appropriate planting, replanting and management of woodland within the World Heritage Site, but promotes a general presumption against new or replacement planting where these would cause a negative impact on the attributes of the Site’s OUV. The Strategy particularly advocates the removal of woodland and scrub cover from key monuments, views between monuments and from their landscape settings.

8.5.23 The WHS Woodland Strategy is designed to aid landowners in both parts of the WHS when considering any works involving hedges or trees. The five policies of the WHS Woodland Strategy are supported by 15 objectives and management opportunities for each area of woodland, scrub or hedgerow. It is recognised that a good deal of this land is privately owned and so it will be important for the relevant organisations working in the WHS to maintain good relationships with landowners and managers. A small working group of key partners would be helpful in identifying and prioritising those areas of work which can be achieved within the lifetime of this plan. Others will be long-term or opportunistic aims. (Policy 3i/Action 62)

Barrow planted with beech trees

© W

esse

x A

rcha

eolo

gy R

IMG

1083

Screening

8.5.24 The positive screening role of woodland can be important where designed to hide existing modern development which cannot be removed in views within

The WHS Woodland Strategy (2015)

Policies

1. The Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS should be sustained and its attributes enhanced by appropriate woodland management in accordance with the Woodland Strategy.

2. Conservation of archaeological monuments, their settings and views between monuments to sustain the outstanding universal value of the WHS and enhance its attributes.

3. Maintain suitable screen planting for extant built structures where necessary to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS.

4. Promote appropriate management of existing woodland in the WHS consistent with the overarching aim of conserving and enhancing the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value.

5. Promote understanding of the historical and ecological significance of woodland in the WHS landscape and how woodland can impact on the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value.


and towards the WHS. Such woodland is important in and around the Larkhill Garrison. Some plantations are already over-mature and will require replacement. It is important that such screening, for instance the Cursus plantation, does not damage underlying archaeological remains. Much less attention has been paid to restoring important views from the other attributes of OUV, such as the Monarch of the Plain barrow, and from the principal approaches to Stonehenge. There is a potential to decrease woodland cover in such situations. There are also opportunities for selective removal of trees at archaeological sites which are attributes of OUV (as has been achieved in Fargo Plantation and along King Barrow Ridge where trees previously masked the width of the Cursus and threatened the archaeological features below ground), thereby visually returning barrows and earthworks to the landscape. (Policy 3i/Action 63, 64)

8.6 Climate change

Issue 25: The effects of climate change on the WHS

8.6.1 Damaging climate change, driven by greenhouse gases, is now widely recognised as a defining issue of our times. The historic environment is not immune from the impacts of climate change. Shifts in temperature, storminess and flood risk could all take their toll on historic sites and places. Localised flooding prevents access to West Kennet Long Barrow 2014

© B

eth

Tho

mas

Policy 3i – Sustain and enhance the attributes of OUV through woodland management while taking into account the WHS’s ecological and landscape values

ACTIONS

62 Promote the WHS Woodland Strategy recommendations and encourage their implementation.

Stonehenge

63 Remove trees from north-eastern end of Cursus to prevent damage to monument. Agree replanting scheme with appropriate archaeological mitigation to improve setting and protection of monument whilst providing for screening of existing intrusive features. Maintain screening of existing buildings in line with WHS Woodland Strategy.

Avebury

64 Retain and manage critical beech screening of an appropriate height on boundary at Rawlins Mobile Home Park.

8.6.2 The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has considered the likely impact of climate change on World Heritage Sites and has published a strategy proposing an approach to addressing this issue.109 The Committee has requested all World Heritage Sites to integrate climate change issues into new and revised management plans (as appropriate) including risk preparedness, adaptive design and management planning.

8.6.3 As a response to an action in the 2009 Plan, a workshop was arranged by English Heritage in March 2013 to consider the issue of climate change in both parts of the WHS. As a result of this workshop a Climate Change Risk Assessment (March 2014) was prepared which was developed with the help of a number of professionals working locally and nationally in relevant areas. This Climate Change Risk Assessment lists foreseeable risks to the monuments and their surroundings and makes an assessment of their likelihood and severity. These risks include, amongst others, higher precipitation, damage to monuments from people, livestock and vehicles, increase in burrowing animals, change in vegetation and invasion of non-native species, pathogens and pests.

8.6.4 The historic and natural environments are closely interrelated in the landscape of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. It is human interaction with the natural environment over time that has led to the historic landscape features for which the WHS is inscribed. Changes in the ecology of the chalk grassland may affect the setting and conservation of NNR, SSSI and SAC. The effects of climate change are still unclear but milder and wetter winters and drier summers are anticipated and some weather extremes are projected to become more common including heavier precipitation in both summer and winter. Recent weather events such as prolonged precipitation in both winter and summer months have already led to some issues regarding ground erosion by visitors, vehicles and animals. The risk assessment contains a number


117

of recommendations and actions. It needs to be reviewed every five years starting in 2019 and a working group is required to implement any recommendations effectively across both parts of the WHS. The issues are discussed in further detail in the Climate Change Risk Assessment which is available on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website110. (Policy 3j/Action 65)

8.6.5 There is increased support and demand for renewable energy schemes as a means of mitigating against the effects of climate change and to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Changes in the subsidies available for renewable energy may change the demand for this kind of development. These schemes may have an impact on monuments, their setting and the setting of the WHS. The impact of renewable energy developments is considered more fully in Section 7.4.7.

8.7 Risk management and counter- disaster preparedness

Issue 26: Counter-disaster preparedness in the WHS

8.7.1 The UNESCO World Heritage Committee recommends that Management Plans consider the risk of potential disasters and how these might be countered, itemise those disasters which present a foreseeable threat to the property and what steps have been taken to draw up contingency plans for dealing with them, whether by physical protection measures or staff training.111 They have placed great emphasis on the need for preparedness and forward planning and have published guidance on the matter.112

8.7.2 In the Stonehenge 2009 plan the question of counter-

disaster preparedness was raised but no mention was made in the Avebury 2005 plan. There is currently no risk assessment or register for the WHS as a whole. Individual organisations within the WHS with management responsibilities have their own counter-disaster plans for their own estates or areas of responsibility. An audit of counter-disaster plans should be undertaken by a small working group and a risk register should be prepared to help identify any gaps that need to be considered. (Policy 3j/Action 66)

Climate Change Risk Assessment 2014

Policy 3j – Produce risk management strategies; keep under review and implement as necessary

ACTIONS

65 Implement monitoring and adaptation strategies identified in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Climate Change Risk Assessment (2014). Review the Risk Assessment every 5 years.

66 Identify potential risks to the WHS, its attributes of OUV and its management. Ensure WHS partners’ risk registers reflect these. Identify and respond to any gaps.

9.0 VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Aim 4: Optimise physical and intellectual access

to the WHS for a range of visitors and realise its

social and economic benefits while at the same time

protecting the WHS and its attributes of OUV

9.0 Introduction

9.0.1 This section looks at the changes in the tourism environment within Wiltshire and the UK and in particular the changes at Stonehenge and Avebury since the 2005 and 2009 plans. The priority for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is the protection and conservation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV and for this reason the priority must be sustainable tourism in relation to the impact tourism has on the WHS and the local community and infrastructure. A review of the workability of a Limits of Acceptable Change model would help to inform a wider sustainable tourism strategy developed in partnership with VisitWiltshire. There is a discussion of sustainable transport in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

9.0.2 Tourism is an important element of the economy of Wiltshire and the South West and the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is fundamental to the tourism economy of Wiltshire. The WHS supports jobs, infrastructure and services which in turn benefit the local community. The WHS Coordination Unit will work with VisitWiltshire to create sustainable growth which benefits the local economy without harming the WHS, its attributes of OUV or the amenity of its residents. The solution to the congestion on the


A303 at Stonehenge and beyond will also affect the opportunities or otherwise to build on the economic benefits of the WHS. Section 9.4 looks at a more strategic approach to tourism and improving the economic benefit of the WHS.

9.0.3 At present visitors are concentrated on the ‘honey pot’ sites at Stonehenge and Avebury Henge and there is limited understanding by visitors of the extent of the WHS. Further work is required to widen access and help visitors to explore the less well-known areas of both parts of the WHS whilst ensuring that this does not have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. To deliver greater economic benefit to the county the desire is to encourage visitors to stay longer and thereby spend more money in the local economy.

9.0.4 Many visitors come to the WHS to celebrate the Summer and Winter Solstices and other pagan observances. These observances require sensitive management by the many WHS partners involved to ensure the protection of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This subject is discussed in Section 8.0 (Conservation).

9.1 Recent developments in the tourism context of the WHS

9.1.1 The VisitWiltshire Economic Impact Study published in 2014 using results from 2012 shows that Wiltshire attracted 18 million day visitors and 1.7 million staying

visitors. Wiltshire’s visitor economy generates £1.4bn and supports over 27,000 jobs.

9.1.2 Stonehenge, with more than 1.25 million visitors in 2013, has long been one of the top 10 major paid attractions at a national level.113 Alongside Salisbury Cathedral (c 250,000 visitors a year), the stone circle is a key reason for visiting Wiltshire. VisitWiltshire’s content, photography, video and social media activity related to Stonehenge are used extensively by VisitBritain in their overseas campaigns as a national icon.

9.1.3 Both parts of the WHS appeal to many different types of visitor. Stonehenge is a popular destination for coach tours. Over 60% of paying visitors travel to Stonehenge as part of a group. Avebury is less well-known by overseas visitors but receives a number of groups. However, in contrast to Stonehenge in 2012, 94% of visitors travelled independently to the site by car or on public transport.

Stonehenge

9.1.4 At Stonehenge, one of the most important achievements in the lifetime of the 2009 Plan was the opening, by English Heritage, of a new visitor facility at Airman’s Corner in December 2013. This Visitor Centre meets the needs outlined in Section 9.7 of the 2009 Plan with an exhibition explaining the landscape, its history and features, an indoor café space and larger retail facility. A shuttle system takes visitors from the Visitor Centre to the Stones, a distance of around 2km. A stop at Fargo Plantation allows visitors easy

Stonehenge Visitor Centre

© B

eth

Tho

mas


119

access into the Stonehenge Landscape managed by the National Trust. An orientation leaflet given to visitors on arrival shows the extent of the landscape, access gates and information points at key locations within the landscape and approximate walking times between key monuments. Before this facility opened in 2013, a large proportion of visitors used Stonehenge simply as a brief refreshment and convenience break on route to other destinations in the South West as they travelled along the A303. Wiltshire is already seeing a significant increase in staying visitors and length of stay as a result of the changes at Stonehenge, with overnight stays reportedly up 10%. Visitors are now asked to pre-book their visit to the Site which should result in less congestion during the high season but will reduce the number of people who will be able to make a spontaneous visit when travelling through the area.

9.1.5 The Stonehenge Visitor Centre is one part of the Stonehenge Museums Partnership which also includes new displays at the Wiltshire Museum in Devizes (opened in 2013) and Salisbury Museum (opened in 2014). English Heritage is committed to promoting the two museums to Stonehenge visitors as part of a strategy to bring wider economic benefits to Wiltshire.

Salisbury Museum

© A

sh M

ills

Phot

ogra

pher

Avebury

9.1.6 At Avebury, the National Trust team worked in collaboration during 2011–12 with the BBC to make a television programme,114 The Manor Reborn. This project involved a team of historians, experts and volunteers reinterpreting the 500-year-old Avebury Manor and restoring it as an immersive experience. The Manor re-opened to visitors in the spring of 2012 following the completion of the project and has seen an increase in the number of visitors to the Manor and a change in the visitor patterns. Visitor numbers to the Alexander Keiller Museum have also increased but the National Trust report that there are few signs of increased erosion on the Henge.

9.1.7 The WHS is just part of the visitor offering in the county of Wiltshire and the South West. It is important that the managers of the WHS work with partners such as VisitWiltshire, North Wessex Downs AONB, the Ridgeway Partnership, Wiltshire and Swindon Local Economic Partnership (LEP), LEADER Local Action Groups, the National Trust and English Heritage to enable tourism that takes into account the needs of the local communities and respects the high quality natural and cultural heritage.

VisitWiltshire

9.1.8 VisitWiltshire is the Destination Marketing and Management Organisation for Wiltshire and is responsible for developing the county’s visitor economy by raising awareness of Wiltshire as a tourist destination locally, nationally and internationally and generating additional tourism visits and spend. VisitWiltshire became a company limited by guarantee in August 2011 and now has 550 funding partners. VisitWiltshire is a key partner in developing good relationships with other tourist attractions and services within the local area and ensuring that the economic benefit of the WHS spreads to the local community. VisitWiltshire partners with VisitEngland and VisitBritain. VisitWiltshire has an integrated marketing programme of consumer, trade and press activity which includes hosting familiarisation visits for travel trade and media, print (260,000 copies distributed), website 115 (1 million unique visits per year), national thematic marketing campaigns (2013/14 themes: countryside, romance, city breaks, food and drink and activities),

VisitWiltshire 2015 Brochure


Customer Relations Management, digital marketing, social media and other trade and press activity. The draft Destination Management and Development Plan 116 produced by VisitWiltshire in 2014 reflects the aims, policies and actions of the WHS Management Plan including the development of a WHS Sustainable Tourism Strategy in partnership with the WHS. It recognises the importance of the WHS to the visitor economy of Wiltshire but also notes that ‘the WHS has to strike a balance between meeting the needs of visitors, the environment and community interests’.

North Wessex Downs AONB

9.1.9 The North Wessex Downs AONB is working with businesses and other organisations involved in tourism to recognise the value of the landscape in their own promotion and visitor experience and to build reciprocal economic and other links. In 2013 the AONB launched a Visit North Wessex Downs Toolkit,117 containing materials such as maps, images and text which are free to use by associated businesses. This work has a national marketing platform in the ‘Our Land’ initiative. ‘Our Land’ is designed to market responsible tourism in UK protected landscapes to domestic visitors, with an emphasis on overnight stays. In 2014 ‘Our Land’ involved 25 AONBs and National Parks across the UK, with Responsible Travel as the private sector partner.

Other WHSs

9.1.10 There are also other opportunities to work with other World Heritage Sites within the South West, UK and internationally. In the last six years, some work has been undertaken particularly on the issue of sustainable transport with the three other World Heritage Sites in the South West: The City of Bath, Jurassic Coast and Cornish and West Devon Mining. More could be done to refer visitors to other sites across the South West and the rest of the UK. There is some scope to look at linking Stonehenge and Avebury with other megalithic and prehistoric sites across the UK and Europe to create a megalithic or prehistoric network creating itineraries for tourists and opportunities for study and research. Both of these opportunities would raise the profile of such sites in general and provide a mechanism for less well-known sites to be supported by those which are more familiar.

9.1.11 The Ridgeway National Trail starts on Overton Hill

within the Avebury part of the WHS. It was agreed in October 2014 to establish a new National Ridgeway Trail Partnership, with membership open to principal stakeholder organisations such as the WHS as well as the local authorities concerned. The new partnership will be in place from 1 April 2015. This partnership will operate under Natural England’s New Deal for National Trails which includes emphasis on opportunities for economic development and environmental enhancement along the Trail corridor. This offers a new potential source of collaborative energy to generate projects that could help meet WHS aims.

9.2 Sustainable tourism

Issue 27: The application of the principles of sustainable tourism is essential to secure the primary objectives of management: the long-term protection and presentation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This can only be achieved through the partnership of all individuals and organisations involved, and their interaction in all decision making

Sustainable tourism

9.2.1 The word ‘sustainable’ is used in a number of contexts. In this context, the UNESCO definition of sustainable tourism as ‘tourism that respects both local people and the traveller, cultural heritage and the environment’118 or the United Nations World Tourism Organisation’s definition: ‘tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities’119 seem the most appropriate. The ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999)120 provides useful guidance on the management of tourism at places of heritage significance in a sustainable manner. It advises ‘tourism promotion programmes should protect and enhance Natural and Cultural Heritage characteristics.’121

9.2.2 Successful management of public access and tourism at Stonehenge and Avebury WHS will depend on an integrated monitoring programme that can identify where visitor pressure may be damaging archaeology, ecology or the landscape and then tackling these problems with a successful programme of actions.

9.2.3 Although the impacts of unsustainable tourism: traffic congestion, overcrowding, inappropriate development, damage to monuments and the impact on local community are common to both parts of the WHS they are, perhaps, felt more directly at Avebury. Here, overcrowding, traffic congestion and competition for parking can affect the day to day lives of the community


121

who live in the village that is set within and around the Henge monument. Any negative impacts are less intensely and more indirectly felt at Stonehenge as the communities are more distant from the main monuments. Even so the recent closure of the A344 has elicited concerns from some residents who feel that it has resulted in greater traffic flows and congestion in their villages. This issue is discussed in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

WHS Sustainable Tourism Strategy

9.2.4 A WHS Sustainable Tourism Strategy needs to be developed working with key partners such as VisitWiltshire, the North Wessex Downs AONB and the Wiltshire and Swindon Local Economic Partnership (LEP), the National Trust, English Heritage, Amesbury Town Council and Avebury Parish Council. It also needs to be linked with the VisitWiltshire Business Plan and Wiltshire’s Destination Management and Development Plan (2014).122 The development of branding, positioning, marketing and promotion all need to take into account the WHS and its attributes of OUV. The economic benefit gained from the WHS needs to benefit the local community, businesses and the conservation organisations charged with managing the assets of the WHS who require funds for conservation and maintaining archaeological collections. Types of tourism which are inherently more sustainable should be encouraged, including linking the WHS with other attractions such as the museums, market towns, public access to downland and the Avon Valley. (Policy 4a/Action 71)

Wise growth

9.2.5 The tourism sector use the term ‘wise growth’123

which recognises that any growth should take into account the need to protect those aspects of our cultural and natural heritage which draw visitors from both within the UK and from overseas. Wise growth within the WHS would focus on increasing revenue rather than visitor numbers.

9.2.6 There is a need to balance the wider economic and employment benefits of tourism with its impact on the WHS. Adverse impacts on both the WHS and the local community should be avoided. A balanced WHS Sustainable Tourism Strategy should include:

Protecting and enhancing the quality of the historic environment

Enhancing the quality of the visitor experience Managing the number and timing of visits Monitoring the impact on the community amenity Providing a net benefit to the local community and

economy Exploring ways that the profits of tourism could

benefit conservation and interpretation Ensuring the sustainability of archaeological

collections from the WHS Collaborating with, and complementing, rather than

competing with, other attractions in the region Ensuring maximum and coordinated use of public

transport to get to and from the WHS Ensuring adequate transport infrastructure to assist

the tourist trade and tour operators in accessing the WHS and the wider area

Encouraging private tour companies and guides to provide sustainable tourism experiences

Appropriate and sustainable regeneration opportunities

Skills development and apprenticeship opportunities across the wide range of sectors involved in the management of the WHS from tourism and leisure to heritage and nature conservation (Policy 4b/

Action 78)

Improving access for walking, cycling, horse riding and activity holidays

Securing appropriate low impact accommodation Developing a managed events programme

throughout the year and across the WHS.

9.2.7 There is a tension between the impact of tourism on fragile archaeological remains and the amenity of the local community, and the economic benefit that tourism brings to the local community. Related income can also support conservation work. Both English Heritage and the National Trust, as non-profit making organisations, rely partly on the income which the visitors to Stonehenge and Avebury respectively provide. Placing restrictions on the commercial activity at these sites; such as a policy of ‘non-promotion’ which was discussed in the Avebury Management Plan 2005, might reduce erosion. It could however reduce income that is currently used for conservation work. Other sources would need to be available to cover any shortfall in funding. There is a difficult balance to

Impact of footfall in Avebury Henge

© B

eth

Tho

mas


achieve. The protection of the WHS and sustaining its OUV must remain the primary focus of activity. Stonehenge in particular is a ‘must see’ attraction for many visitors to the UK and will always attract visitors even without any direct marketing. English Heritage has now introduced a pre-booking policy for Stonehenge. This aims to smooth out peaks and troughs in visitor numbers and over time should reduce congestion in the area at peak times. At Avebury, the National Trust plans its events programmes to avoid attracting additional visitors at times of peak demand. 124 It remains important that where the attributes of OUV are at risk, their protection takes precedence over financial and commercial interests.

9.2.8 The main visitor facilities run by the National Trust and English Heritage at Avebury and Stonehenge respectively have limits to their capacity most particularly in the amount of car parking available. There is a saved policy in the Wiltshire Core Strategy (TR9) that actively prevents any significant net increase in the number of formal car parking spaces in the Avebury half of the WHS as discussed in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

Issue 28: The use of a Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) model as an integrated monitoring tool for improved management of the WHS should be explored. Gaps in monitoring need to be identified and addressed

Limits of Acceptable Change

9.2.9 The poor visitor experience that results from overcrowding is not in the interest of any organisation or local community. Promotional activity for the WHS should not encourage unsustainable visitor numbers. Promotional activity needs to be agreed by partners and should be considered as part of the LAC model and the Sustainable Tourism Strategy. A LAC model which all partners agree on and consider in business and management planning should provide a pragmatic tool to ensure that tourism is maintained at a sustainable level. Capacity may exist outside of peak periods but it should be noted that these may also be periods of unfavourable weather conditions when erosion would be more likely. This should also be taken into consideration. Any proposed new development of visitor facilities in either part of the WHS must contribute to managing visitor pressures. (Policy 4a/Action 70)

9.2.10 The principle of ‘carrying capacity’ discussed in the Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005 as a means of preventing harm to tourist sites is no longer current

because the environment in which we work is not stable and there are too many variables to assess fixed numbers of visitors that any particular site can carry. However, the development of a simple and workable Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) model by all partners would set out triggers for actions to maintain a sustainable level of visitors in terms of monument condition, community amenity and visitor experience and available resources. These triggers may also be affected by issues such as climate change outside the control of the WHS partners.

9.2.11 Any LAC model will depend on an integrated monitoring programme that can identify where visitor pressure may be damaging archaeology, ecology or the landscape. It should also be designed to monitor changes in the visitor experience or the amenity of the local communities.

9.3 Visitor management

Issue 29: The management of visitors to the WHS

Code of respect

9.3.1 Visitors of course play a role in sustainable tourism. Their behaviour can have both a positive and negative effect on the places that they visit. The development of a ‘WHS code of respect’ for visitors to the WHS would be a useful tool to encourage the kind of behaviour that protects the WHS and does not impact on residents in a negative way. There are other relevant examples available already such as the ‘Countryside Code’ and the ‘Every Footstep Counts’125 code developed by the Hadrian’s Wall Trust. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS code would build on these and other examples and help visitors to understand how they can prevent harm to the WHS and its environment. Once developed, an integrated, multi-channel strategy for the dissemination and promotion of the code is required. (Policy 4a/Action 72)

9.3.2 One approach to reducing the visitor impacts in the WHS and at the same time increasing benefit to the wider area would be to create and promote opportunities for visitors to enjoy the wider landscape. This could be achieved through providing information on other things to see and do in the area, encouraging visitors to explore other sites within and outside the WHS or supporting businesses and initiatives that seek to offer guided experiences


123

Visitor management at Stonehenge

9.3.3 Stonehenge has long been a popular visitor destination and attracted over 1.25m visitors in 2013. The triangle of land at Stonehenge between the A303, former A344 and Byway 12 is managed by English Heritage. As long ago as the 1970s, the numbers and behaviour of visitors to Stonehenge raised concerns. The physical environment at the Stones proved unable to withstand pressure from such large numbers of visitors, with the result that strict visitor management measures were introduced in the late 1970s, such as roping off the Stones and provision in some areas of a hardened path (on the line of formerly disturbed land). A low-level and reversible ‘bridge’ was placed above the fragile earthworks of the Avenue, in order to protect them and allow a circular walk around the monument. These arrangements have made it possible to return the centre of Stonehenge to grass.

9.3.4 A well-researched grass management regime is in place in areas where there is no hard-standing. Visitors are allowed to walk within roped areas, which are relocated by staff according to when erosion looks to be likely to happen.126 In this way, the large number of visitors to the site for the main part does not have an adverse impact on the grass around the Stones. However, in the last few years the established maintenance regime has been increasingly tested with long periods of wet weather and high visitor numbers. The grass maintenance regime at the Stones needs to be monitored and reviewed following the changes resulting from the completion of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (SEIP).

Stone circle access at Stonehenge

9.3.5 English Heritage operates a Stone Circle Access scheme, which allows a limited number of visitors to enter the stone circle before and after the monument is open to the general public. This type of visit, which must be booked in advance, allows visitors to get closer to the Stones than is possible during normal visiting hours. This access is restricted at certain times of the year to allow grass to recover. Management of solstice and other pagan observances is discussed at Section 9.6.

9.3.6 Access to the Stones and the resilience of the immediately surrounding ground will remain key issues as long as visitor numbers are high and challenged by recent changes in climate. The desire of visitors to get physical access to the centre of the Stones has to be balanced against the conservation needs of the monument, and additionally raises issues of security and control. Climbing on the Stones, and even touching them may have serious

implications for their long-term preservation. This applies in particular to their ancient carvings and evidence of stone dressing, the importance of which have been more fully recognised following the laser scan survey of 2011. This is also the case for the important colonies of fragile lichen. Visitor access will need to continue to be carefully and intensively managed in the immediate area around the Stones. (Policy 3a/Action 22)

Virtual access

9.3.7 Virtual access to the Stones and Landscape is provided through the English Heritage Stonehenge website127 which was updated in 2013/14 as part of the SEIP. This provides a 360° view experience of being inside the stone circle and also includes an interactive map of the Stonehenge landscape to enable visitors to find out more about the site before or after their visit and for those who are unable to visit the site due to limits in their physical mobility or distance.

Seasonal visitor patterns

9.3.8 Visitor pressure is compounded by the highly seasonal nature of tourism at Stonehenge, together with peaks created by the influx of visitors at certain times of the year, mainly at the Summer and Winter Solstices and Equinoxes. The growth in visitor numbers has also led to increasing demand between different user groups who seek access to the Stones for different purposes. New initiatives such as the special exhibition space and a winter events programme at the new Visitor Centre will help to encourage visitors out of peak times.

9.3.9 Visitors to Stonehenge are given information regarding other attractions in the surrounding area by VisitWiltshire’s digital posters at the Visitor Centre and are actively encouraged to visit Devizes and Salisbury to see the collections at the Wiltshire and Salisbury Museums. However, public transport to Stonehenge is poor, although there is a good Stonehenge Tour Bus service that travels to the Visitor Centre from Salisbury Station and returns via Old Sarum. There are no public transport links to any other local communities. This issue is discussed in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

9.3.10 One issue that has arisen since the opening of the new Visitor Centre is the question: How do people access the Stonehenge Landscape without using the new centre? This question is particularly related to organisations, such as the National Trust, which as the owner of the land around Stonehenge, organises activities such as guided walks and tours and events held in the Landscape. A review of available car parking and possible options for


those who wish to explore the Stonehenge Landscape without using the Visitor Centre is required. This issue is discussed further in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic). (Policy 4c/Action 87)

Impact of the new Visitor Centre

9.3.11 The impact on the visitor experience created by the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre needs to be further explored and monitored during the lifetime of this Management Plan and a number of questions will need to be answered: What is the demand for visitors to extend their visit by travelling to Avebury via Devizes, both by car and using public transport? How do people learn about the WHS? What planning do they need to do before they travel? Are they aware of the alternative methods of transport to the site? How does the Centre impact on traffic? How does the new interpretation scheme impact on more distant parts of the WHS to the Visitor Centre and Stones? Is there an impact on the condition of the monuments? How will it impact on visitor numbers at Avebury?

9.3.12 It is too early to tell how the SEIP has changed the potential harmful pressures, identified in the 2009 Plan, on the immediate vicinity of the monument. Although the closure of the A344 and the previous visitor facility has immensely improved the surroundings of the Stones, there continues to be vehicular access along Byway 12 and it is not yet understood how this may impact on the monument and the management of the Stonehenge Landscape. The changes in the landscape and visitor movement should be under review during the lifetime of this Management Plan and adaptations to the new arrangements made as necessary. English Heritage and the National Trust meet regularly to discuss joint operational issues at Stonehenge and the surrounding landscape and this regular dialogue should facilitate the completion of any necessary adjustments. (Policy 4a/

Action 68)

Conservation Statement for Stonehenge

9.3.13 A Conservation Statement for the English Heritage estate at Stonehenge is being published by English Heritage in 2015. This will outline any recommendations for the protection and care of the guardianship monument. All monuments within the WHS should, in time, have a conservation statement which would address any management issues or concerns (see Section 8.2.9–10).

9.3.14 It is essential that any changes to visitor management do not adversely affect the special qualities of the WHS or

of Stonehenge itself, including its mystical appeal, which, for many people, lies at the root of its attraction.

Visitor management at Avebury

9.3.15 For hundreds of years visitors have been drawn to Avebury by a fascination with the origin and significance of the prehistoric landscape. Today, the National Trust which manages the site aims to provide public access in ways consistent with preservation that will ensure future generations can enjoy the same benefits.

9.3.16 Avebury was voted the second best World Heritage Site experience by Which? Travel magazine in January 2013 citing ‘the quiet, bucolic setting, the lack of crowds and the ability to wander freely’ and ‘In very few places in the world are monuments of such importance left alone to gently integrate with the landscape.’ In general visitors feel that the facilities there meet their expectations and the site offers a less structured experience than that at Stonehenge. However, the layout of visitor facilities at Avebury in relation to the visitor car park means that not all visitors are aware of the Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury Manor, café, toilets and shop and results in many visitors leaving Avebury without a full understanding of the site’s importance or experiencing the kind of facilities that one would expect at a World Heritage Site. In recent years, the National Trust has

Which? Travel January 2013


125

improved orientation and welcome at the site with the introduction of new signage (2011), a mobile information trailer manned by staff and volunteers in the car park and an orientation leaflet which shows the location of the site facilities. Some, including a number of local residents, would prefer a less cluttered signage scheme at the pedestrian approach to the village in and from the southern car park. A branding strategy for the WHS is discussed at 10.8.9 (Policy 5e/Action 124) which addresses this issue. More work could be undertaken to raise awareness of the World Heritage Site status, its extent and the outlying monuments such as Silbury Hill, Windmill Hill and the Sanctuary.

9.3.17 Due to the open nature of the site, estimating annual visitors to Avebury is difficult but the number of users of the car park, visitors to the Alexander Keiller Museum Barn and Stables Galleries and Avebury Manor give some indication. This is supplemented by the recently introduced pedestrian counters at key locations within the landscape. It does not provide a total number of visitors but gives an indication of how many people have passed through a specific point. These are particularly useful for indicating trends in numbers and providing data for assessing the impact of total numbers of visitors on ground surfaces. It is currently estimated that up to 300,000 people access the Avebury WHS landscape per annum.

9.3.18 Tourism does provide substantial economic benefit to Avebury but this needs to be balanced with the interests of visitors and the quality of life of the community. This is perhaps most noticeable in the area of traffic and parking congestion.

Local Management Agreements (LMAs)

9.3.19 There is a long history at Avebury of discussions regarding the capacity levels of the site in relation to visitor numbers. As discussed above the theory of carrying capacity is no longer current but the discussion continues. There is concern, particularly from residents, that an increase in visitor numbers will adversely impact on their quality of life due to parking congestion and traffic. The ability to manage any visitor impact on the monuments of Avebury, and in particular the Henge which is most heavily visited, is an issue of resources and management. English Heritage, which is responsible for the six Guardianship sites at Avebury, has a Local Management Agreement (LMA) with the National Trust who owns the land and manages the Guardianship sites and visitor facilities. This LMA and completion of renegotiations for its renewal is extremely important for the successful management of the Scheduled

Monuments it relates to. The current LMA is scheduled for agreement in 2014 and review in 2017.

9.3.20 The Manor Reborn programme mentioned at 9.1 did result in an increase in visitors but apparently has not seen an increase in visitors to the Henge and related monuments. It seems that the programme has excited interest in visitors who before the re-opening of the Manor would not previously have considered Avebury as a place to visit. A reported increase in visits to the museum has provided these visitors with information about the WHS.

Car parking in Avebury

9.3.21 Car parking at Avebury continues to be a problem particularly on busy days and on days when there are pagan observances. On these days cars are turned away from the car park and advised to return later in the day or visit nearby National Trust properties. Timed tickets for the Manor are bookable in advance or available on the day. In the period following the opening of the Manor in 2012, the local community reported an increase in parking in the High Street but this now seems less of a concern locally. The installation of planters on the High Street in 2013 has helped to reduce parking but a more permanent solution needs to be found. The WHS Transport Strategy has advised that a residents’ parking scheme would be the most appropriate solution. There is concern that changes in visitor patterns due to the new Visitor Centre at Stonehenge will lead to an increase in visitors to Avebury. Currently there is no public transport between Stonehenge and Avebury and the need for this should be investigated. Any visitors who decide to travel to Avebury having visited Stonehenge will mostly travel by car and this could have a negative impact on the already limited parking at Avebury, particularly in the high season. More coach tours may visit Avebury rather than Stonehenge. Should visitor numbers regularly exceed the current parking provision then the situation will need to be reviewed. There are car parks located at satellite areas such as Silbury Hill, the Sanctuary and Fyfield Down and more could be done to raise awareness of these additional facilities for walkers and others wishing to explore the landscape independently. There is an excellent bus service from Swindon which could be promoted more. The situation needs to be closely monitored and any mitigation put in place. The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy (2015) addresses many of the issues and will be discussed in more detail in Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic). (Policy 4c/Action 88)


Fyfield Down NNR

9.3.22 The whole of the Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve was added to the WHS in 2008 as a result of the minor boundary extension approved by UNESCO.128 The importance of this area and its relationship with the rest of the WHS is little articulated. Sustainable access and interpretation of the archaeological landscape of the Fyfield Down NNR should be improved in partnership with Natural England and landowners, assisted by the National Trust, English Heritage, Historic England and ASAHRG. This should form part of the planned Avebury Interpretation and Learning Framework (see Section 10.0).


Tourist Information Centres

9.3.23 The closure of the Tourist Information Centre discussed at Section 9.4.11 below means that information on the wider WHS, accommodation, travel and other visitor attractions in the local area needs to be accessed through other means. There has been no survey on the effect this has had on visitor experience and circulation around the WHS and the surrounding district. The need for such a facility needs to be

reviewed and any recommendations implemented as necessary (Policy 4b/Action 81). It would be useful to undertake a visitor and non-visitor survey to improve understanding of visitor motivation, needs and behaviours. This could include reviewing the current levels of marketing and information provision and should result in an action plan to address issues and implement recommendations.

Issue 30: Visitors can cause erosion and other problems

Visitor erosion

9.3.24 Large numbers of visitors can cause problems to fragile archaeological remains both above and below ground. However, the WHS Condition Survey 2012 noted that such damage was limited. Appropriate management regimes carried out by the land managers of the WHS helps to keep this to a minimum. Footfall needs to be carefully managed to avoid negative impacts on the monuments.

Avebury

9.3.25 At Avebury the Henge is vulnerable to visitor erosion, particularly where visitors climb onto the banks and along the top of the Henge bank. In 2008 ‘drapes’ were installed on the bank of the south-east quadrant to prevent further erosion, improve safety and reduce the potential loss of archaeological material. A number of stakeholders are concerned about their impact on the monument. An assessment of the effectiveness of these structures would be useful to inform future conservation works. There have been some incidents of a relatively small number of visitors climbing Silbury Hill. Climbing Silbury Hill is forbidden to prevent damage to the monument, harmful impacts on the SSSI and health and safety risks. Managers are seeking ways

The Valley of the Stones, Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l

Erosion control on the banks of Avebury Henge

© B

eth

Tho

mas


127

to discourage this through fencing, signage and effective communication with visitors to explain the need to protect the site. (Policy 4a/Action 76)

Stonehenge

9.3.26 Apart from the Cursus Barrows, relatively few monuments at Stonehenge are at present suffering from visitor erosion. Visitor numbers at Stonehenge itself are carefully managed (see Section 9.3.3–9.3.4 above), but if more visitors are dispersed around the WHS, then the condition of monuments will need to be monitored closely.

Effects of climate change

9.3.27 Although in general erosion from visitor footfall has decreased through the development of a careful management regime, there remains a risk that increased numbers could have negative impacts. This could be further exacerbated by changes in climate.

Other damage

9.3.28 As well as problems caused by footfall, visitors can damage archaeological sites in other ways, such as erosion of stone carvings and evidence of stone dressing, damage to signs, litter, graffiti and fires. Archaeological features both above and below ground can be damaged by the effects of fire. These issues can pose a greater risk during the Summer Solstice. The WHS Condition Survey carried out in 2010 and published in 2012 noted that visitor damage was minor compared with other possible impacts and most damage resulting from human use of the landscape was in fact from vehicles (see Section 8.2.13). Most visitors demonstrate considerable respect for the monuments and act in a responsible manner. However, there is a continual low level of litter, graffiti and damage at sites within the WHS which needs to be monitored and addressed, as it is at present. A ‘WHS Code of Respect’ should be developed and widely disseminated to help protect the WHS and reduce impact on the residents. Provisions relating to fire including the lighting of barbeques, Chinese lanterns and candles should be included in the WHS Code of Respect. (Policy 4a/Action 72)

Issue 31: Lack of visitor data for Stonehenge and Avebury WHS including visitors to outlying monuments, and visitor movement and knowledge of WHS beyond the EH and NT estate to help inform the management of visitors in the wider WHS

9.3.29 To be able to manage the WHS in a proactive and effective manner its managers need to improve their

understanding of visitor numbers and movements by reviewing the data available, identifying gaps and introducing appropriate data collection where required. It is desirable to encourage visitors to explore the wider WHS landscape further both to fully understand its extent and to reduce potential visitor erosion at key monuments. However, the number of visitors exploring various parts of the WHS is little understood and more work needs to be undertaken to further understand how people move through the WHS, the impact that this has on the WHS and its attributes of OUV and inform the development of appropriate management regimes. Data collected from the pedestrian counters installed at key points in both parts of the WHS needs to be used effectively to target appropriate mitigation and resources. The impact of visitors on the monuments and landscape should be reduced by developing targeted access and dispersal strategies such as the appropriate location of gates and information points. (Policy 4a/Action 67, 68)

9.3.30 Pedestrian counters were installed in the Stonehenge Landscape before the opening of the Visitor Centre and these will enable trends in visitor movements at key points in the landscape to be tracked over time. Pedestrian counters have also been installed by the National Trust in partnership with English Heritage at Avebury.

9.3.31 Data on visitors to the North Wessex Downs AONB, the NNR at Fyfield Down and along the Ridgeway National Trail is limited and more work needs to be done to understand how many visitors are exploring these areas of the Avebury WHS.

9.3.32 The WHS and its partners should review current visitor experience surveys and identify gaps in order to demonstrate that the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is

‘Drapes’ laid over the monument to protect it from erosion by visitor footfall

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/Nic

k Sn

asha

ll


managed in an exemplary manner and also to measure whether public understanding of the World Heritage Site and its status is increasing. (Policy 4a/Action 69)

Family visitors

9.3.33 Appropriate facilities to meet the needs of family visitors should be provided together with information suitable for children of different ages. The National Trust, English Heritage and the museums at Avebury, Salisbury and Devizes provide material for family visitors such as children’s guides and audio tours. A review of provision should be included in the review of the Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy and the proposed Avebury WHS Learning and Participation Framework.

Visitors from overseas

9.3.34 Finally, as a World Heritage Site, Stonehenge and Avebury perhaps have to be particularly aware of the needs of visitors to the site whose first language is not English. Information needs to be available and proactively marketed to target markets on websites for visitors from overseas planning their visit and then on site itself in terms of interpretation and other facilities. A review of what information is available in key languages needs to be undertaken and action taken to fill any gaps that are identified. (Policy 4a/Action 75)

Visitors with disabilities

9.3.35 One key community of people who need special

Policy 4a – Management of visitors to the WHS should be exemplary and follow relevant national and international guidance on sustainable tourism

ACTIONS

67 Improve understanding of visitor numbers, movements and impacts by reviewing data available, identifying gaps and introducing appropriate data collection where required. Make data available to WHS partners.

68 Manage the WHS sustainably by developing targeted access and dispersal strategies eg appropriate location of gates and information points. Monitor and respond appropriately to changes in visitor numbers and patterns including any changes following the opening of Stonehenge Visitor Centre (including any impact on Avebury). Use data collected from pedestrian counters to enable partners to target their resources to mitigate impact of visitors on monuments, landscapes and local communities. Refer to Ecological Management Strategy for visitor access to the landscape at Stonehenge.

69 Review existing data on visitor understanding and awareness of the WHS. Where necessary improve or commission new research to establish a base line from which this can be measured over time.

70 Investigate the feasibility with WHS partners of a workable method for sustainable management such as a simplified Limits of Acceptable Change model. Maintain a sustainable level of visitor impacts in terms of monument condition, community amenity, visitor numbers and experience. This will be affected by factors such as weather conditions, drainage, grazing, other management regimes and available resources.

71 Produce a WHS Sustainable Tourism Strategy with WHS partners which reflects the LAC. Ensure

branding, positioning, marketing and promotion reflects and sustains the OUV of the WHS. Economic benefit should reach the local community and WHS partners requiring funds for conservation and maintaining archaeological archives. Link with VisitWiltshire’s tourism strategy.

72 Develop a ‘WHS code of respect’ for visitors to the WHS to encourage behaviour that protects the WHS and reduces impact on the amenity of its residents. Disseminate and promote the code.

73 Seek to work with commercial and charitable organisations and others to ensure that events and activities fulfil the WHS Vision and have no adverse impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV, and the amenity of the local community.

74 Carry out a review of existing provision for people with disabilities. Identify opportunities for increasing access for disabled visitors where required without harming the integrity of the WHS. In a rural landscape this is likely to include virtual access. Improving access for hard to reach groups and non-attendees should also be explored.

75 WHS partners to encourage the provision of reasonable pre-visit information in major languages.

Avebury

76 Carry out informal review to consider whether equally effective and safe yet less visually intrusive alternatives to the ‘drapes’ are available to prevent erosion on Henge banks whilst allowing access as appropriate.


129

consideration regarding access to the WHS are people with disabilities. The Office for Disability Issues calculated in 2011/12129 that there are 11.7 million people in the UK with a disability. The open rural landscape of the WHS can provide difficulties for people with disabilities, particularly if they have mobility issues, but reasonable adjustments can be made so that the landscape is made as accessible as possible. Adjustments made can often help a wide number of people, for example the replacement of stiles with gates will not only assist users of mobility aids such as all-terrain scooters but also families with pushchairs and buggies. Access points and crossings should take into account people with disabilities in their design without harming the WHS and its attributes of OUV. The development of suitable accommodation is also required. Other disabilities can be catered for with the provision of facilities such as audio tours, touch tours and other forms of interpretation which are often also appreciated by visitors without disabilities. Partnerships with organisations such as the Local Nature Partnership (LNP) may be able to assist with developing schemes to improve access for hard to reach groups and non-attendees. Interpretation is discussed further in Section 10.0 (Interpretation, Learning and Community Engagement). (Policy 4a/Action 74)

9.4 Economic benefit of the WHS to the wider community

Issue 32: The WHS, tourism and the local community

9.4.1 The WHS is a working landscape. Villages in the Woodford and Kennet Valley, the Army and civilian housing at Larkhill, and settlements such as Beckhampton, Avebury Trusloe, East and West Kennett and Winterbourne Monkton, Bulford, Shrewton, Amesbury and Durrington and the farms in the Site are all living communities and key stakeholders in the future of the WHS. The WHS has further potential to benefit the local community, by generating business and employment through direct and indirect tourist spending on local accommodation, restaurants, shops and amenities.

9.4.2 At Avebury, as already noted above, the local community plays a more central role, with many living within the WHS. The Community Shop, the Post Office, a number of bed and breakfasts accommodation providers, the Henge Shop and the pubs including the Red Lion are all key community services which are sustained by visitors to the area.

9.4.3 At Stonehenge, up to December 2013, the surrounding settlements did not benefit significantly from tourism at Stonehenge with many people passing through and the majority of visitors only staying at Stonehenge for an average of 45 minutes. However, the completion of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre in December 2013 has led to a change in how visitors engage with the site and the dwell time. English Heritage recommends that visitors allow at least two hours for a visit to Stonehenge and if all facilities are fully explored, with even a short walk in the landscape the length of visit can be extended much beyond that.

9.4.4 Working with VisitWiltshire, the Salisbury Museum and Wiltshire Museum, English Heritage has been proactively encouraging visitors to explore other parts of the county and extend their stay. This includes joint promotional activity, website links, joined-up travel trade, public relations and consumer marketing activity and joint digital information panels at the new Visitor Centre.

9.4.5 This provides an opportunity to maximise and spread the economic benefits of visitors to Stonehenge more widely within the locality. The increased facilities have led to greater employment opportunities for local people and the longer dwell time is already leading to increased length of stays and increased overnight visits from visitors to Wiltshire.

9.4.6 Many visitors to Stonehenge are unaware that it is just one half of the WHS and more work needs to be done to inform interested visitors about Avebury and the Alexander Keiller Museum. There is however, a car parking capacity issue at Avebury so it would not be appropriate to encourage visitors to travel there by car at peak times. In general, visitors are encouraged to use sustainable transport where possible. More work needs to be undertaken to develop bus travel from Stonehenge to Avebury, building on the success of the Stonehenge Tour Bus that travels from Salisbury railway

The Henge Shop, Avebury

© B

eth

Tho

mas


station to Stonehenge via Old Sarum. The ‘Henge Hopper’ pilot project took place in 2011/12, supported by the North Wessex Downs AONB and Wiltshire Community Area Board. This service which travelled via Wiltshire Museum in Devizes demonstrated that there is a demand for such a service and highlighted the significant resources required for promotion and integration with other transport. More work also needs to be done to develop cycling and walking routes.

9.4.7 Wiltshire Museum in Devizes opened its new prehistoric galleries in October 2013 and Salisbury Museum opened its new Wessex Gallery in July 2014. The terms of the loan agreements between Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums and English Heritage mean that within the exhibition at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre there are numerous references to those museums with an encouragement to visit and explore the archaeological collections of the WHS further. The landscape interpretation scheme, the exhibition at Stonehenge Visitor Centre and the two new museum galleries in Salisbury and Wiltshire provide a much enhanced visitor experience. Tour operators and visitors should be encouraged to make more of the destination in its own right. In addition, more work should be done to strengthen the relationship of English Heritage, the Salisbury Museum and Wiltshire Museum with the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury to ensure that the visitors gain a full understanding of the WHS and to derive the widest economic benefit. (Policy 4b/Action 79)

9.4.8 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS, as Britain’s most visited archaeological site, should be used to encourage visitors to visit other heritage sites and museums in the wider area and to link their trips to the neighbouring settlements. More themed heritage, archaeology, walking itineraries should be developed and proactively

promoted to visitors and via the travel trade to encourage visitors to stay longer in the area and benefit other attractions and partners of VisitWiltshire in partnership with VisitWiltshire, Wiltshire Council’s Archaeology Service, the National Trust, North Wessex Downs AONB and English Heritage. (Policy

4b/Action 77)

9.4.9 However, to enable the economic benefits of visitors to the WHS to reach local communities, information needs to be available and the links by road and public transport need to be clear. Currently, particularly from Stonehenge, there are very poor public transport connections. Salisbury is the only destination available by public transport. Well-promoted cycle and pedestrian routes and a strong public transport network are essential to enable sustainable access to the monuments and to enable visitors to access services available within the local community and maximise the benefit derived from the visitors to the WHS. More on transport can be found in Section 11.00 (Roads and Traffic).

9.4.10 English Heritage has worked closely with VisitWiltshire to provide information at the new Visitor Centre. There is no outlet for printed materials but digital screens provide information on other attractions in the area and encourage visitors to explore the VisitWiltshire website and download their Apps using the free Wi-Fi provided in order to find out further information, stay longer and stay overnight.

Tourist Information centres

9.4.11 The Tourist Information Centre which was located in the Avebury United Reformed Church (URC) Chapel on the High Street until September 2011 provided a useful information point for both residents and visitors, it helped to disperse visitors and income to adjacent areas, as well as providing a source of information for exploring the WHS landscape further. Partners should seek opportunities for providing tourist information locally and assist in identifying a sensitive use for the URC Chapel that would benefit the WHS. At Amesbury, the tourist information centre was scaled down to a limited provision in Amesbury Library and the Community Shop. The need for tourism information within Avebury and at Amesbury should be reviewed and if a need is established, there should be consideration of how such a facility would be funded. In the mean time, partners should provide web-based information and direct visitors to it and the VisitWiltshire website. (Policy 4b/Action 81)

9.4.12 Although community business initiatives should be Digital marketing panels at Stonehenge

© B

eth

Tho

mas


131

encouraged, it is important to ensure that these do not have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV or impact adversely on its tranquillity and the visitor experience. (Policy 4a/Action 73)

9.4.13 To provide a sustainable economic benefit to the surrounding area the WHS Coordination Unit should work with partners to identify appropriate and sustainable regeneration opportunities such as re-use of buildings and training and capacity building through apprenticeships and other skills development opportunities such as volunteering. In addition initiatives to enhance rural tourism and the local food and drink sector that might be related to the WHS should be explored. (Policy 4b/Action 78)

9.4.14 Further discussion on how the local community could become more engaged in the WHS is considered below in Section 10.0 (Interpretation, Learning and Community Engagement).

Issue 33: There is insufficient tourist accommodation both formal and informal for those wishing to stay and explore the WHS

Visitor accommodation

9.4.15 There is insufficient tourist accommodation to meet the demand for visitors who wish to explore the WHS. Main centres for the provision of tourism accommodation are Swindon for Avebury and Salisbury for Stonehenge. There is a range of bed and breakfast, inn and guest accommodation in the vicinity of the WHS but not necessarily within it. VisitWiltshire as the Destination Management Organisation for Wiltshire is responsible

Policy 4b – Spread the economic benefits from tourism related to the WHS throughout the wider community

ACTIONS

77 Identify and support opportunities across the VisitWiltshire membership to increase dwell time in Wiltshire using the WHS as a catalyst. Work with VisitWiltshire to identify accommodation needs of visitors to the WHS. Encourage accommodation provision that will allow for longer stays. Develop wider historic itineraries for visitors based on the WHS to encourage longer stays in Wiltshire.

78 Work with partners to identify appropriate and sustainable regeneration opportunities that enhance the WHS and maintain its OUV. This could include apprenticeship and other skills development opportunities such as volunteering

as well as initiatives to enhance rural tourism and the local food and drink sector.

79 Strengthen partnerships with Salisbury, Wiltshire and Alexander Keiller Museums and the Stonehenge Visitor Centre to increase income and provide benefits to the local economy.

80 Work with the Amesbury History Centre and other similar facilities to raise awareness of the WHS and the work of its partners.

81 Review the need for re-establishing a tourist information facility in Avebury and Amesbury. In the interim seek opportunities for providing tourist information locally following the closure of the TICs within Wiltshire.

for promoting tourism in Wiltshire published Wiltshire and Swindon Visitor Accommodation Futures130 in July 2014.

The report was commissioned by VisitWiltshire with support from the Wiltshire and Swindon Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). It identifies a significant lack of many types of different accommodation, and identifies significant opportunities for accommodation growth.

9.4.16 The report highlights a number of key opportunities for growth including: budget accommodation, holiday lodges, eco lodges, holiday parks, glamping developments, boutique hotels in market towns, pub accommodation, camping and caravanning sites, farm stay accommodation, bunkhouse barns, activity holidays and residential centres. It provides an assessment of future opportunities for visitor accommodation development across Wiltshire and Swindon, and sets out a five-year Action Plan that aims to create an additional 2,000 jobs by 2020, equivalent to an average annual increase in visitor accommodation employment of 6%. The WHS should work with VisitWiltshire to look for opportunities to develop appropriate accommodation for visitors to the WHS to increase the economic benefit to the local community. (Policy 4b/Action 77)

9.4.17 Helping new or existing tourism businesses through

training and access to financial support is key to ensuring the quality of the visitor experience. One key ambition would be to help tourism providers to recognise the value of WHS and the services it provides to their business. An example of this is the recent work undertaken by North Wessex Downs AONB to provide free resources for use by associated partners through www.northwessexdowns.org.uk.131


Visitors using the new landscape interpretation panels at Woodhenge

© B

eth

Tho

mas

9.5 Public access

Issue 34: Public access to, and awareness of, the whole WHS

9.5.1 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is recognised as being of international importance for its complex of outstanding prehistoric monuments. The survival of large numbers of both visible archaeological monuments and buried sites concentrated within the c 5,200 hectares of chalk downland has resulted in a landscape without parallel, preserving evidence of a long history from prehistoric times of human interaction with the environment.

9.5.2 However, the landscape of the WHS is not purely Neolithic and Bronze Age in nature, but bears the imprint of many successive centuries of human settlement and cultural activity. Although often of historic and cultural importance in their own right, these are frequently overlooked by visitors to the WHS (although many are not accessible). Examples include:

Iron Age activity as evidenced by the remains of the hill fort known as ‘Vespasian’s Camp’

Roman activity on Rox Hill, towards Oatlands Hill, near Durrington Walls and around the Cuckoo Stone and at Avebury around Silbury Hill and the length of the Roman road that forms the basis of the modern A4

Saxon activity at Avebury, in Amesbury and in and around Countess Farm

Medieval and post-medieval activity, currently known along the Avon and Kennet valleys, including historic villages, manor sites, including Avebury Manor, and their estates, and water meadows

Military activity, including existing buildings and structures within Larkhill Camp. Many former military structures now only remain as below ground deposits, such as the Stonehenge Aerodrome, just to the north of Normanton Gorse, and the Larkhill Aerodrome on Fargo Road, which was probably the earliest military airfield in the world and was the site of the first military plane trials and airborne radio transmissions; Yatesbury just to the north-west of the Avebury part of the WHS was established in late 1916 to train pilots in reconnaissance. Associated with the airfield was a German POW camp which opened in 1917

Monumental associations with military history such as ‘Airman’s Cross’

The remains of parks and gardens associated with important buildings, and in particular plantations claimed to have been established in commemoration of famous people or events.

9.5.3 Current public awareness of and access to heritage assets in the wider WHS landscape is generally low, particularly at Stonehenge in the south of the Site and the Avon Valley and at Avebury beyond the Henge and West Kennet Avenue. Attention is focused on the key sites, with little appreciation of the surrounding archaeological landscape. This concentration is due to a number of factors including:

The direct vehicular access to Stonehenge and Avebury provided by the A303 and A4361

The location of the car park and visitor facilities The restraints on physical access imposed by fast-

moving traffic on the A4 and A303, where there are no pedestrian or cycle crossing points

The seemingly less significant and less dramatic nature of other archaeological components at Stonehenge

The constraints imposed by the current pattern of land ownership and public access opportunities on foot, particularly to the south of the Site at Stonehenge and outside the village of Avebury

Lack of adequate clearly marked WHS routes and circular walks.

9.5.4 More work needs to be undertaken to spread visitors more evenly across the WHS landscape so as to reduce the impact of visitors at key monuments and this should be considered when developing the Limits of Acceptable Change model and Sustainable Tourism Strategy discussed above in Section 9.2 and the Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework. There are a number of ways of doing this using the National Trust permissive open access land and the numerous public rights of way and permissive paths. It is important to engage relevant landowners, local groups and parish councils at an early stage of planning and promoting new routes or access opportunities. The WHSCU and NE


133

Fingerposts on the High Street, Avebury

© B

eth

Tho

mas

will work with farmers to encourage the maintenance and extension of permissive access. (Policy 4c/Action 84)

9.5.5 Information should be provided before the visit on websites, leaflets and other media in major languages as well as English, to ensure that the extent of and opportunities provided by the World Heritage Site can be properly understood by overseas as well as domestic visitors. Pre-visit information should enable visitors to be well prepared before their visit. They will be aware of what facilities are available, the opportunities for walking and be able to allocate sufficient time to enjoy the many aspects of the World Heritage Site. They will be able to bring suitable clothing and footwear for the weather and ground conditions.

9.5.6 The Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (SEIP) has delivered a more varied visitor experience with more encouragement to explore the wider landscape using the orientation leaflet, the drop-off point at Fargo Plantation and the scheme of interpretation panels installed by the National Trust in partnership with English Heritage. At Avebury, more work needs to be done to assist visitors to explore

the landscape on foot. The proposed Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework (see Section 10.0) together with the Avebury Transport Strategy (2015) should review the provision of information at key orientation and dispersal points to assist visitors in exploring the wider landscape.

9.5.7 A more extensive hierarchy of way-marked paths in both parts of the WHS to suit different visitor needs and those of local users would provide better access to the WHS as a whole. This should build on existing walks created by the National Trust on its land and using the established network of public rights of way. Preliminary studies on establishing a number of WHS Circular Walks in Avebury should be reviewed. The WHS Transport Strategy scheme suggests establishing additional routes where links are missing (Scheme 2.1 Connected Path Network). Cycling routes such as the route developed by the www.connectingwiltshire.

co.uk132 website for Stonehenge should be promoted and cycle stands provided in key locations. The 1 South West (1SW) project, which aims to promote off-road cycling in the South West,133 launched an interactive resource highlighting legally accessible cycling routes in the North Wessex Downs AONB graded according to experience. Links to the Sustrans national cycle network will also help to provide opportunities to access the WHS by sustainable means.

Cycling

9.5.8 Cycling around Stonehenge is made difficult by the current A303 arrangements. The cycling charity Sustrans are unable to complete gaps in the National Cycle Network because of safety concerns for cyclists travelling along and crossing the A303. The old A344 is available for cycling as a permissive path and public right of way. The Cycling Strategy of the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011–2026 should be considered in the development of a Sustainable Transport Strategy (see Section 11.5) for both parts of the WHS. Infrastructure such as bicycle stands in appropriate locations and waymarking would encourage more users.

Explore bus service

9.5.9 One way of increasing access to and within the Site might be an ‘explore bus’ service which could drop off and pick up tourists at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre or Avebury village centre, in local settlements and at various other points. This could further be extended with a shuttle service between Stonehenge and Avebury in order for the WHS to be explored to its full extent. A review should be undertaken of the


demand for and the possible impacts of a park and ride or increased commercial bus services on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This topic is discussed more at Section 11.0 (Roads and Traffic).

9.5.10 Where physical access is limited, the widespread availability of digital technology could provide opportunities for visitors to experience less accessible areas both on site using hand held devices and from computers at home. This aspect of access is considered further in Section 10.0 which discusses interpretation. Another physical measure for increasing accessibility is the replacement of stiles with gates wherever possible.

Landscape Access Strategy

9.5.11 These issues would be addressed with the development of a Landscape Access Strategy for the WHS. This should include an examination of the current rights of way and cycle path network to identify where there are gaps in the network and look for opportunities for enhancement to the existing provision. Where possible replace stiles with gates to improve accessibility. The WHS Landscape Access Strategy should consider in particular access from surrounding communities providing accommodation to allow visitors to access the WHS on foot or by bicycle. It should also include a review of access between the two halves of the WHS including the possibility of establishing a walking route between Stonehenge and Avebury. The Great Stones Way proposed by The Friends of the Ridgeway has met with resistance from some quarters and has not been endorsed by Wiltshire Council. Such a route might best be approached through a partnership project which would need to assess the environmental impacts of any proposed route and include arrangements for monitoring and management. A review of the WHS signage and information at key dispersal points should be undertaken in the light of the recommendations of the Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy (2010) and the proposed Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework and any further work carried out as necessary. The Strategy should include necessary impact monitoring and management regimes. The WHS Landscape Access Strategy should complement the Wiltshire Council Countryside Access Improvement Plan (CAIP 2014).134 (Policy 4c/Action 83)

9.5.12 There is widespread evidence of the benefits of walking to the general population in terms of both physical and mental health. There are a number of initiatives to encourage people to walk in order to avoid many of the common ailments such as Type II Diabetes, cardio-

vascular diseases, mental health and obesity. The WHS provides excellent opportunities for people to both take exercise and learn more about the history of the site. Partnerships with organisations such as Get Wiltshire Walking135 would meet the objective of helping people to access and understand the WHS whilst also meeting the health and wellbeing objectives of Wiltshire Council and other bodies responsible for public health. Other opportunities including the promotion of walks such as the White Horse Trail and safe cycling routes will encourage health promotion activity. (Policy 4c/Action 85)

9.5.13 The objective of increased public access will, however, have to be balanced with the need to maintain working agricultural land, to protect archaeological sites and to create nature conservation sites. Increased recognition of the importance of the whole WHS will require an integrated approach that blends sound archaeological and land management with high quality visitor interpretation and access information. Improved access is only possible with the agreement of the landowners.

Charity and other large scale events

9.5.14 The route between Stonehenge and Avebury has become popular in recent years for charitable events such as the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Sarsen Trail (May 2014) 136 Alzheimer’s Society Stonehenge to Avebury Trek 137 or Trail Run (September 2014), the Macmillan Stonehenge to Avebury Trekathon (August 2014), the Eve Appeal (September 2014) and many others. While these events are undoubtedly popular and successful fundraising events, it is important that the infrastructure required for the start and finish points and along the routes is managed carefully to reduce any potential impact on the WHS and local communities. This effect can be increased if weather conditions have been poor as hundreds of people travel down the same route in a short period of time creating ruts and wear with the potential to damage archaeological remains close to the surface. These events, where appropriate, need to be carefully and sensitively managed and the event organisers need to work with the relevant partners within the WHS from an early stage in the planning process. Although such events are not entirely under the control of either English Heritage or the National Trust, these and other relevant organisations could provide information on the considerations and processes that responsible event organisers should follow if thinking of organising an event in the area. The same applies to charity and commercial events such as open air concerts and rallies that attract large numbers. (Policy 4c/Action 86)


135

Policy 4c – Encourage access and circulation to key archaeological sites within the wider WHS landscape. Maintain appropriate arrangements for managed open access on foot within the WHS (taking into account archaeological, ecological and community sensitivities) to increase public awareness and enjoyment

ACTION

82 Maintain policy of permissive open access on NT land reverted to pasture.

83 Develop a WHS Landscape Access Strategy to include an examination of the current rights of way and cycle path network to identify opportunities for enhancement in line with the Wiltshire Countryside Access Improvement Plan (CAIP 2014). Improve routes to the WHS for the local community and visitors staying in the surrounding area. This Strategy should avoid conflicts with historic and ecological interests and include necessary impact monitoring and management regimes.

84 Encourage greater exploration of the wider landscape by visitors and local community. Provide WHS signs at key dispersal points in coordination with the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy (2015), the Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy (2010) and the Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework.

85 Encourage fitness and wellbeing initiatives which provide opportunities for visitors to explore the wider WHS.

86 Work with organisers of charity and other events to minimise impacts on the WHS and local communities. WHSCU to contact organisations to raise awareness of the sensitivities and necessary consents.

Stonehenge

87 Explore car parking options for those intending to explore the Stonehenge landscape without using the Visitor Centre.

Avebury

88 Raise awareness of parking facilities across the Avebury WHS.

89 Improve sustainable access to the archaeological landscape of the Fyfield Down NNR and its links to the rest of WHS.

Winter Solstice 2012, Avebury

© A

ndre

w W

illia

mso

n

9.6 Solstice management

Issue 35: The need to manage carefully the Summer Solstice and other pagan observances to allow a reasonable level of access whilst ensuring that the conservation needs of the monuments are met

9.6.1 There is a strong spiritual connection with Stonehenge and Avebury felt today by the growing pagan and druid religious communities. Both parts of the WHS are used for pagan and druid observances throughout the year with the Summer Solstice the main focus of activity at both sites.

9.6.2 Over recent years the trend has been an increase in numbers at all observances throughout the year at both sites. Management of these observances involves considerable staff and financial resources for all the organisations that work together to ensure that they take place in a safe and peaceful manner and with minimal impact on the monuments. (Policy 4d/Action 91)

9.6.3 Although activity is focused in the main henges at each site, other monuments throughout the WHS also attract smaller scale ceremonies and damage can be caused by fires and wax from candles.

9.6.4 It is essential that the proactive and inclusive management of solstice and other pagan observances in both parts of the WHS is continued to protect the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Managed access also needs to be monitored to ensure that unacceptable impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV are avoided, particularly in the case of the Winter Solstice which has increased in popularity in recent years and occurs at a time when damage to the ground and other upstanding monuments is most likely due to weather conditions. (Policy 4d/Action 90)


Close up view of the stone circle during the Summer Solstice sunrise

© N

0200

19 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Avebury

9.6.5 The Avebury Sacred Sites Forum (ASSF) meets regularly throughout the year and operates as a forum for discussion and planning. It is attended by representatives of the National Trust, St James’ Parish Church and Avebury PC together with members of the druid and pagan communities. Avebury Guardians, a group of volunteers, act as wardens and monitors of the Site, assisting the National Trust at key observances. The Avebury Solstice Operational Planning Meeting is a more formal group that meets regularly in the six months before Summer Solstice and consists of the National Trust, Wiltshire Police, the Fire and Rescue Service, St John Ambulance, Wiltshire Council, a security company, the landlord of the Red Lion, Avebury PC and two pagan representatives from ASSF.

9.6.6 No direct restriction is placed on access to the Henge which is open to the public 24 hours every day. However overnight parking is not permitted and limited camping is only permitted at controlled locations identified following a public consultation. In addition an Enforcement Order was put in place by Kennet District Council in 2006

preventing sleeping in vans parked overnight in the National Trust car park. A balance has to be struck between access to Avebury, the concerns of local residents and the protection of the monuments and the underlying archaeology.

9.6.7 The proximity of the residents of Avebury to the activities related to those attending pagan observances can cause conflict. Noisy drumming at night and disorderly behaviour by a minority causes stress and inconvenience to some local people who can feel threatened by what they see as invasions of large numbers of people, many of whom have a different lifestyle to their own.

9.6.8 Information is provided about the arrangements at solstice and other observances on the National Trust website.138 In September 2006 Kennet District Council issued a planning enforcement notice which came into effect on 1 January 2007 regarding the use of the main car park at Avebury for high sided vehicles and camper vans entering the car park during Solstice. A height barrier has been installed to comply with local authority


137

Policy 4d – Manage special access at Stonehenge for significant occasions including solstices, and for stone circle access outside opening hours for small groups and all open access at Avebury to avoid harm to the WHS and its attributes of OUV

ACTION

90 Monitor the impact of open access and respond to results to ensure the least dis-benefit to the WHS and attributes of OUV. This is especially relevant where numbers have increased over the life of the Plan such as at Winter Solstice.

91 Continue proactive and inclusive management of solstice and pagan observances.

regulations and affects all vehicles over 2.1m in height. No camping is permitted in vehicles in the main car park during Solstice.

9.6.9 As a result of this enforcement notice the National Trust carried out an options appraisal in 2007 to identify potential sites for the creation of a car park and overnight accommodation for pagan observances. The solution needed to balance the interests of Avebury’s disparate groups as well as protect the archaeology of the World Heritage Site, minimise disruption to the village, ensure access for worship for the pagan community and conform to police concerns over traffic flows. The appraisal outlined nine potential sites. Following discussions, it became evident that the status quo was the best solution.

9.6.10 Unauthorised camping continues to be an issue and in particular on the Ridgeway National Trail. An approach to this issue needs to be agreed and implemented. (Policy 4d/Action 90)

Stonehenge

9.6.11 The number of people attending the Stonehenge Summer Solstice (15,000–36,000) requires a greater scale of operation than at Avebury which attracts c 2,000–3,000.

9.6.12 At Stonehenge, the Round Table meets regularly and is attended by representatives of the pagan and druid community together with English Heritage, the National Trust, Wiltshire Police and Amesbury TC. This meeting is preceded by a Solstice Planning Meeting attended by all the organisations who are involved in the management of the observances throughout the year. Peace Stewards work with English Heritage and Wiltshire Police to monitor and steward those attending Summer Solstice and other celebrations.

9.6.13 Access to the Stones for the Summer Solstice has been historically controversial and in the mid 1980s it was banned. However, since 2000, English Heritage has worked in partnership with pagan and community groups, Wiltshire Police, the emergency services, Wiltshire Council, Highways Agency and other agencies and interested groups, and now opens the monument free of charge at the Summer Solstice to all who wish to visit. Conditions of entry are agreed by the interested groups in advance and English Heritage publishes these on their website. This means that visitors attending know what to expect in advance of their arrival.

9.6.14 Each year a temporary car park is set up in the western part of the WHS, 1km from the stone circle, but attendees are increasingly encouraged to make use of the public transport arrangements that have been developed since 2004. Up to 36,000 (2014) may now visit the Stones to celebrate and enjoy the Summer Solstice. The management of the Summer Solstice and other seasonal gatherings is now greatly improved and all recent periods of access have passed off peacefully. However, the planning, organising and operating of such events is a significant financial cost for English Heritage and others, and development and management work continues throughout the year. Visitor numbers, the traffic implications and the behaviour of visitors will need to continue to be closely monitored by the relevant authorities to ensure the protection of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Minor damage has been recorded over the last few years particularly at observances. The EH Property Curator monitors the condition of the site before and after the observances and organises appropriate conservation work if necessary. It is becoming increasingly challenging to accommodate all the differing needs and desires of the various groups of the public who wish to attend the Solstice and protect the monument at the same time. (Policy 4d/Action 90)


10.0 INTERPRETATION, LEARNING AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Aim 5: Improve the interpretation of the WHS

to increase understanding and enjoyment of its

special characteristics and maximise its educational

potential. Engage the local community in the

stewardship and management of the WHS

10.0 Introduction

10.0.1 In this section the obligations to present and transmit the values of the WHS are considered. The interpretation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV is an important task, particularly when the period being interpreted is relatively difficult to understand. In many cases only traces of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages remain and their significance is difficult for many to grasp.

10.0.2 Education at all levels is important if the WH Convention objective to maintain World Heritage Sites for future generations is to be achieved. A great deal of work has been undertaken at Stonehenge as part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (SEIP) but much more can be done and an overall framework for interpretation and learning remains to be done at Avebury. The continued partnership with the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums together with the Alexander Keiller Museum is key to helping visitors and local communities to understand and appreciate what the WHS can teach us about the early inhabitants of Wiltshire.

10.0.3 The engagement of local communities in the work of the WHS is essential for the continued positive management of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Valuing the historic and natural environment is achieved through helping local communities to understand the values and attributes which have led to the creation of a World Heritage Site. More needs to be done to help local communities to understand the WHS through involvement in its management, creation of artistic events and activities, and good communication of the positive benefits that the Site provides. A communication strategy is required to help frame the key messages and how these should be communicated to specific groups of people involved with the WHS.

10.1 Developments in interpretation of the WHS

Issue 36: There is a need to improve the interpretation of the WHS particularly the outlying monuments and the landscape as a whole

10.1.1 There have been a number of improvements in the interpretation of the WHS since the 2005 and 2009 Management Plans most notably at Stonehenge. The opening of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and the new interpretation scheme in December 2013 finally provided the quality of interpretation that a WHS deserves. However, there is still a need to complete the outstanding actions of the Stonehenge Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy (2010) (SILPS) and to create a holistic framework for Avebury. In particular more attention needs to be given to outlying monuments and the landscape as a whole which are less well understood and appreciated by visitors and local residents alike.

Interpretation at Stonehenge

10.1.2 The interpretation at Stonehenge now consists of a coherent scheme across the areas of the WHS managed by English Heritage and the National Trust. This scheme was a direct result of the Stonehenge WHS: A Strategy for Interpretation, Learning and Participation 2010–2015139 which was published by English Heritage in 2011. This comprehensive document was developed by the English Heritage Interpretation Department in partnership with the WHS Interpretation and Learning Team which was a working group consisting of representatives from English Heritage, Salisbury Museum, Wiltshire Council, the National Trust, the Stonehenge WHS Coordinator, Avebury WHS Officer, Wessex Archaeology, Wiltshire Museum, Amesbury Town Council and Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Clear themes were agreed and the new galleries at Stonehenge and the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums focus on different topics to provide a richer experience for visitors who take the trouble to explore all three places.

10.1.3 The WHS Learning and Interpretation Group has not met for some time. It should be reconvened to review

Stonehenge WHS: A Strategy for Interpretation, Learning and Participation 2011


139

the actions of the SILPS. The review should consider completed actions and how to implement the outstanding ones. An update of the SILPS is required and actions for 2015–2020 developed. Particular consideration should be given to the provision of interpretation in the southern part of the WHS and any original aims or parts of the scheme that were not delivered due to budget or time constraints. This update should include a minor review of how the scheme and new landscape access is working including using the data from visitor counters. (Policy 5a/Action 98)

Interior of Neolithic House

Alis

tair

Dea

ne ©

His

tori

c En

glan

d

10.1.4 The provision at Stonehenge now includes the exhibition in the Visitor Centre, an orientation leaflet which shows the wider landscape and the main monuments within it and a revised guidebook by Julian Richards which has been translated into six languages. There is also a children’s guidebook/activity pack. A revised audio guide in ten languages was produced together with audio tours for the visually impaired, and family visitors. A landscape interpretation scheme was produced by the National Trust in partnership with English Heritage. In addition, English Heritage published a map Exploring the World Heritage: Stonehenge and Avebury in 2013 which features both parts of the WHS and uses the latest evidence to show visible and buried archaeology in the WHS. It focuses on the Neolithic and Bronze Age but also includes information on more modern archaeology such as the Saxon settlement at Avebury and the former airfield at Stonehenge. This is a useful aid for visitors wishing to explore the WHS independently.

10.1.5 The Stonehenge Visitor Centre also includes a small special exhibition space which will enhance understanding, enjoyment and appreciation of the WHS. It is anticipated by English Heritage that this space will hold two exhibitions per year with a low key exhibition for the summer months and a more high profile exhibition for the quieter winter months. The exhibitions for the first two years have been agreed

Standing in the Stones – interpretation at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre

Cla

re K

enda

ll ©

His

tori

c En

glan

d


with ‘Set in Stone’ the opening exhibition followed by an exhibition on Stonehenge and the First World War. This will be followed by Julian Richards’ Stonehenge collection exhibition. A stakeholder forum has been established by English Heritage to contribute ideas and suggestions for future exhibitions. It is hoped that this will provide an opportunity to showcase projects related to the WHS such as exhibitions of the work of artists inspired by the Site or focusing on nature conservation and natural history. (Policy 5a/Action 97)

10.1.6 In Amesbury, the History Centre located in the Melor Hall, Church Street is a local initiative to provide a centre to interpret the long history of the town of Amesbury for residents and visitors to the area. The History Centre is still in development but the WHS Coordination Unit should maintain links with Amesbury Town Council who are responsible for the Centre and the volunteers who manage it.

Interpretation at Avebury

10.1.7 The Avebury part of the WHS does not have a coherent scheme of interpretation across areas managed by different partners and there is no coherent interpretation scheme for visitors to the wider landscape. To achieve a coordinated approach to interpretation across the WHS as recommended in the Statement of Outstanding Value adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2013, an Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework (AILF) should be developed (Policy 5a/Action 99). This should build on and adapt the concept of the Stonehenge Strategy to produce a document appropriate for the context at Avebury. The partnership approach employed at Stonehenge will be important for its success. Partners should include the National Trust, English Heritage, Natural England and Wiltshire Museum as a minimum. If none of the key partners have adequate resources to lead on its development, funding will need to be sought to employ a consultant. The Framework would be likely to take a less resource heavy approach than at Stonehenge and build on existing provision whilst still aiming to achieve a coordinated approach to the interpretation of the Avebury part of the WHS. It will need to explore how the shared OUV of Avebury and Stonehenge will be reflected. Initial work will need to include revisiting the aspirations of all WHS partners. A review of current provision is required and a visitor survey with up to date visitor numbers and profiles for the WHS. Similar data for educational visits should be collected. The Framework should include improved interpretation

of non-visible archaeology. In particular there is a need to include those areas within the boundary extension including Fyfield Down (Policy 5a/Action

100). The Framework should as a minimum agree overarching principles for WHS panels and text within the WHS to assist in providing a coherent message and identity across the WHS alongside partners’ own brands (Policy 5a/Action 92). Any development of an integrated visual identity for interpretation across the WHS should harmonise with planned work on producing a single coherent signage scheme for the Site which is included in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy.

10.1.8 There are some key areas in Avebury that the Interpretation and Learning Framework for Avebury needs to consider such as improving presentation at the Sanctuary, where the concrete posts are deteriorating and becoming degraded making this already hard to understand monument even more challenging. At Fyfield Down NNR there are opportunities to develop interpretation, outreach and community engagement that would link the area more closely into the rest of the WHS.

Digital technology

10.1.9 Digital technology offers great possibilities for interpretation at both Stonehenge and Avebury whether through traditional web content, downloadable apps or GPS enabled content. In planning interpretation for the WHS, digital should be considered as integral from the start. Mobile content can be ideal for remote, unstaffed areas where the visual intrusion of panels needs to be kept to a minimum, but rural areas do not always provide good phone or network signals. Avebury Parish Council has sponsored a series of Wi-Fi hotspots in the High Street and Farmyard with the National Trust

Interpretation panel installed at the Longstones in 2014, a partnership between the landowner, Natural England and the WHS

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


141

in 2014. In the development of the Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework the availability of more Wi-Fi hotspots should be considered to enable the delivery of technology based solutions. This kind of delivery can encourage visitors to discover the wider WHS by providing interpretation and signage which encourages understanding and exploration of the wider landscape particularly at key dispersal points such as the main car park, the Ridgeway, Silbury Hill and Fyfield Down. (Policy 5a/Action 94)

Needs of non-English speakers

10.1.10 As a World Heritage Site it is essential that the needs of visitors whose first language is not English are considered when developing interpretation provision in both parts of the WHS, and that both digital and on-site information is provided in a range of appropriate languages. (Policy 5a/Action 96)

Guided tours

10.1.11 As well as printed and digital interpretation, tours and guided walks are immensely popular and enable visitors to engage on a one to one basis with experts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. The National Trust, English Heritage and the RSPB should continue current provision and look to expand their current offers as part of a wider integrated strategy. However, it is essential that areas where increased footfall is encouraged are assessed for impacts and any necessary monitoring and management regimes established.

Off-site interpretation

10.1.12 Off-site interpretation and information is equally important and the WHS Coordination Unit should work with VisitWiltshire to develop a training programme with their tourism partnership to enable these businesses to act as ambassadors for the WHS, ensuring that key messages are given to visitors. This could take the form of familiarisation visits and written updates using the VisitWiltshire partnership network and identifying any training needs for Blue Badge Guides and others to ensure that they are giving their customers the most up to date information about the WHS. (Policy 5a/Action 95)

Interpretation of other values

10.1.13 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is inscribed for its Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments but there are many layers of history present in the WHS. Interest in

the later history of the area is widespread, particularly in the military history around Stonehenge and in the way that Stonehenge and Avebury have been portrayed by artists and in popular culture over the centuries. It is important therefore that these areas of interest along with the natural environment are not forgotten. Partners working in the WHS should work together to interpret these additional areas of interest in an appropriate and sustainable way in keeping with the WHS interpretation and learning plans.

10.2 Museums and archives of the WHS

Issue 37: Museum and archive arrangements for the WHS

Museums of the WHS

10.2.1 There are three museums which curate and display unique and nationally important collections of archaeological material relating to the WHS: the Alexander Keiller Museum (AKM) at Avebury, Salisbury Museum (SM) and Wiltshire Museum (WM) at Devizes. The opening of the Visitor Centre at Stonehenge in 2013 meant that for the first time visitors could experience museum-quality exhibits to help interpret the Stonehenge Landscape within the WHS itself. The majority of the exhibits at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre are on loan from the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums and visitors are encouraged to expand their visit by visiting both museums after their visit to Stonehenge. The Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums regularly host temporary exhibitions and events on themes related to the WHS and are intellectual gateways to the Site.

10.2.2 The AKM at Avebury has its own on-site museum and documentary archive, where there are interpretation facilities and archaeological displays. The AKM includes the Stables Gallery which houses the archaeological finds and the Barn Gallery which hosts interactive displays and activities for children bringing the archaeology and landscape of Avebury to life.

10.2.3 WM opened their four refurbished galleries to include ‘Gold from the Time of Stonehenge’ in October 2013 and SM opened their new prehistoric Wessex Gallery in July 2014. Both projects were funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, English Heritage, Wiltshire Council and others. These developments are a step change in the quality of interpretation of the WHS and the surrounding areas, and together with the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre exhibition provide the world class interpretation that the site deserves.


10.2.4 The two galleries of the AKM are managed by the National Trust, which is undertaking a review of their present displays. It is likely that a project to redisplay the galleries will be developed by the National Trust, advised by the AKM Advisory Board (which includes representatives of English Heritage and other heritage and museum professionals). This project will require external funding and work needs to be done to explore how this can be achieved. (Policy 5b/Action 101, 102)

10.2.5 Both the SM and WM provide digital access to their collections. At Avebury the desire has been expressed to increase digital access to the AKM collections and archives to enhance education and interpretation of the WHS and its OUV. This would require substantial external funding but would result in the collections being much more accessible. (Policy 5a/Action 103)

10.2.6 Specific links to all the WHS-related museums should be made in interpretation materials where relevant.

10.2.7 The proper archiving and storage of artefacts discovered in past, current and future fieldwork needs to be carefully considered and is discussed in Section 12.0 (Research).

10.3 Presentation, interpretation and visibility of archaeological monuments and sites

Issue 38: The presentation, interpretation and visibility of archaeological monuments and sites

10.3.1 The landscape of the WHS is full of monuments and earthworks that are clearly visible such as the stone circles at Stonehenge or Avebury and the great henges and barrows. There are also a host of remains that are no longer visible to all but the well-trained landscape archaeologist. There are the remains of barrows that have been ploughed flat over time, partial remains such as the Avenue at Stonehenge and the West Kennet Avenue at Avebury and also monuments such as Woodhenge and the Sanctuary which are examples of historical methods of interpretation that are perhaps confusing to the general public. Recent geophysical research such as the Hidden Landscape Project have revealed a substantial number of previously unknown or poorly understood features hidden within the landscape of the WHS many of them are yet to be analysed.

10.3.2 There are opportunities to enhance the visibility of buried archaeological sites in the wider WHS landscape to improve visitor appreciation. For example, ‘earthwork enhancement’ through selective mowing and/or grazing could be used to emphasise particular monuments that are not clear above ground (eg the ceremonial route of the Avenue to Stonehenge or the West Kennet Avenue at Avebury) or to define the location of other important sites, such as the Lesser Cursus, for which the surviving surface evidence is minimal or non-existent.

10.3.3 Interpretation and communication of non-visible or buried archaeology should be improved using a variety of methods. Initiatives such as the map Exploring the World Heritage Site: Stonehenge and Avebury published by English Heritage in 2013 provides information not only on the visible archaeology but also on buried archaeology and helps visitors to understand the extent of the features of the prehistoric landscape. Other methods such as digital applications on smart phones or websites would also provide opportunities to help visitors to understand the archaeological landscape more fully. Digital opportunities should be exploited to take full advantage of the evolving technology. (Policy 5a/Action 94)

Bush Barrow finds

© W

iltsh

ire M

useu

m


143

10.4 Developments in learning within the WHS

Issue 39: The WHS is used for education and lifelong learning

10.4.1 The WHS fulfils an important role in formal and informal education. Currently English Heritage employs a full-time Education Visits Officer for Stonehenge who manages the volunteer-led Discovery Visits programme and the educational resources including the ‘Stones and Bones’ Discovery Visit managed in partnership with the National Trust for Stonehenge. The National Trust Stonehenge Landscape intern programme ended in 2012 and is not to be continued. The National Trust’s Guardianship scheme which was a partnership with a local school on a continuing project aiming to encourage a sense of custodianship through lessons based around local, cultural and natural heritage ended in 2012. At Avebury there is an education room that groups can pre-book and educational groups are able to visit the AKM free of charge, an arrangement which approximately 4,500 individuals benefit from each year. Under the Local Management

and Loan Agreement with English Heritage the National Trust employs a Museum Curator who is also responsible for Education provision. English Heritage manages a Heritage Schools Programme140 which provides a variety of online resources as well as working with individual schools.

Learning and participation partnerships

10.4.2 The Stonehenge Learning and Outreach Coordination Group (SLOCG) partnership was formed as a result of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) projects at Stonehenge, the SM and WM. SLOCG was designed to assist in partnership working and avoid duplication particularly in those areas funded by the HLF. SLOCG was attended by staff members of English Heritage, National Trust, the WHS Coordination Unit, SM and WM and Wessex Archaeology and met around 3–4 times a year to exchange information and work on joint projects such as a Heritage Open Day at Bulford Camp in April 2012, The Big Draw joint activities and volunteer related projects.

ACTIONS

92 Agree overarching principles for panels and text throughout the WHS. Partners provide an integrated and coherent message and identity across both parts of the WHS alongside partners’ own building on the SILPS.

93 Explore opportunities for interpreting the linkages between the historic and natural heritage in the updated SILPS and the Avebury Interpretation and Learning Framework (AILF).

94 Review opportunities to expand digital interpretation for the WHS landscape in line with the SILPS and AILF.

95 Develop a programme of training/familiarisation visits/ambassador scheme for VW and ‘Our Land’ partners including guides and businesses.

96 Review the provision of on-site information and interpretation for non-English speakers.

Stonehenge

97 Explore with EH opportunities for making use of the special exhibition space at the Visitor Centre to enhance understanding, enjoyment and appreciation of the WHS and its setting and links to other WHSs.

98 Review original aims of the SILPS to ensure they

have all been delivered. Explore opportunities for expanding interpretation of the Stonehenge WHS and in particular the southern part where land is in private ownership. Review interpretation across the WHS once landscaping works at Stonehenge completed. Review the signage and way-marking elements related to Policy 4c.

Avebury

99 Develop a WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework for Avebury. The Framework should consider provisions for improved ‘visibility’ of below ground archaeology and the feasibility of updating the interpretation of the Sanctuary and agree appropriate actions to improve.

100 Develop interpretation, outreach and community engagement opportunities at Fyfield Down in line with the developing AILF.

101 Explore possibility of developing project to redisplay the two public galleries of the Alexander Keiller Museum.

102 Develop and implement project to redisplay the two galleries of the Alexander Keiller Museum.

103 Increase digital access to Alexander Keiller Museum collections and archives to enhance education and interpretation of the WHS.

Policy 5a – Improve the interpretation both on and off site to enhance enjoyment and appreciation of the WHS


10.4.3 SLOCG undertook some joint initiatives including the development of a continuous professional development session for teachers. This is particularly relevant for Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 teachers who will be teaching prehistory on the primary curriculum from September 2014, many for the first time, and are looking for assistance.

10.4.4 The focus on the project work related to the SEIP meant that the Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and Outreach Network Group (SALONG) was not as successful as SLOCG. Whilst the networking opportunities with a wider community of organisations such as arts and wildlife groups was appreciated, without a clear focus and programme of activities the group foundered.

10.4.5 SLOCG has been a successful partnership and in 2014 the membership was expanded to include the Avebury National Trust team to create the Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and Outreach Group (SALOG). This will enable projects to be developed across both parts of the WHS and improve connections with Wiltshire schools and other educational networks. There is scope to increase the network further to include arts and wildlife groups on an occasional basis or for specific projects. (Policy

5b/Action 104)

10.4.6 The WHS can be used not just as a resource for teaching about prehistory but in a number of areas of the curriculum. The value of educational resources embodied in a site such as Stonehenge and Avebury should be considered comprehensively in conjunction

Left: Exploring the World Heritage Site: Stonehenge and AveburyRight: Wildlife leaflet produced jointly by the RSPB and the National Trust

with the rest of prehistoric Wessex, together with the museums at Avebury, Devizes and Salisbury. There is scope for widening the role of education of the WHS, to reach new audiences and cover themes such as recent history, wildlife, World Heritage and business tourism and to reinforce the conservation message.

10.4.7 The English Heritage website provides resources for both Stonehenge and Avebury which were developed in partnership with Wessex Archaeology141 who also host learning resources within their website142

and employ a full-time Community and Education Officer who undertakes educational work, including prehistory, at schools in the area.

Learning provision at Stonehenge

10.4.8 Since 2009 there have been substantial changes and improvements to the educational provision at Stonehenge. The Stonehenge Visitor Centre has a dedicated educational resource room which includes space for the storage of bags, a classroom area that can be used for sessions and the development of a number of interactive resources including handling collections and interactive models to explain various aspects of the prehistoric landscape. In addition, online resources have been expanded and updated including an interactive web-based game and information packs to assist teachers with their visit to Stonehenge and classroom learning.143

10.4.9 The SILPS helped to inform and direct a good deal of the educational activities not only for English Heritage but also for the partners of the SLOCG. The learning and participation actions of the SILPS need to be reviewed and any outstanding or new actions implemented through the new group, SALOG. (Policy 5b Action 111)

Testing the Explorer Backpacks at Stonehenge

© H

isto

ric

Engl

and


145

Learning provision at Avebury

10.4.10 At Avebury there have been fewer developments since the 2005 Management Plan. Avebury, like Stonehenge, offers an outdoor classroom across the whole curriculum. The National Trust has an Education Room at Avebury and also provides free introductory talks to schools; artefact handling sessions are also available. There is a great deal of potential to build on current educational provision, but there are limited resources to expand. One exciting project is the ‘Avenue to Learning’ project which was launched in 2012. The project was developed in partnership with local teachers, the University of Cambridge, English Heritage, the National Trust, Wiltshire Council, local farmers and the Avebury and District Club by members of the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG). The project offers primary school children an inspirational day in an exciting outdoor classroom where they could put their geography, mathematics and science lessons into action. Working alongside professional archaeologists the children marked out the buried stone of the West Kennet Avenue using traditional surveying techniques and state of the art GPS equipment. Funding for the development of teacher resources needs to be sought to enable this activity to be repeated in a sustainable manner. (Policy 5b/Action 113)

10.4.11 An Avebury Learning Plan is required as part of an Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework to assist in developing educational potential (Policy

5b/Action 112). The Plan should identify the responsibility and resources for this work. It should be developed in partnership with English Heritage, Natural England and WM. In order to inform the Avebury Learning Plan a survey of the various education groups using the WHS is required to understand the needs of different groups at all levels of education and to inform learning strategies for Avebury and Stonehenge. Opportunities should be sought wherever possible to develop WHS based projects in partnership with members of SALOG. (Policy 5b/Action 104)

Residential study centre

10.4.12 One issue is whether there is a need for facilities and infrastructure to assist in the development of an educational programme in both parts of the WHS. A residential study or education centre within the WHS or within easy reach would allow for more extended field trips and residencies and spaces for shelter would enable visits to take place all year round. Underutilised or redundant barns and outbuildings might be re-used as education shelters and spaces to facilitate learning across the whole of the WHS (Policy 5b/Action

106). However there is no real understanding of the need for such facilities and how they might be achieved

Avenue to Learning

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


if required. A needs analysis is required to investigate whether there is a need for a residential facility in either or both parts of the WHS, potential locations and if so how they might be resourced and actions taken as appropriate following its conclusion. (Policy 5b/

Action 109)

Relationships with local schools and colleges

10.4.13 Learning programmes are well established at primary and secondary level but there is more work to be done to expand connections with local primary and secondary schools and in particular develop lasting relationships which can have greater impact on the learning experience. For example, the UNESCO World Heritage Youth Summit initiative provided opportunities for local schools to meet with young people from other UK WHS in Dorset in 2009 and Greenwich, London in 2012. Sheldon School in Chippenham attended both of these events and has become a UNESCO Associated School.

Relationship with tertiary education

10.4.14 As well as this more traditional link with primary and secondary education, the WHS has links with a number of tertiary level institutions. The WHS Coordination Unit in partnership with members of ASAHRG should look at ways based on the Stonehenge and Avebury Archaeological Research Framework to develop existing and establish new links with universities and tertiary education institutions offering WHS, heritage and archaeological courses. The WHS Coordination Unit and other WHS partners can assist directly by continuing to offer placements to appropriate students for a variety of projects as required. The WHS Coordination Unit is available to talk to local groups and communities and further afield about the various aspects of the WHS and its management. (Policy 5b/Action 108)

Drawing by pupil of Avebury Primary School as part of the Silbury Hill Project outreach programme

Policy 5b – Develop learning opportunities offered by the WHS both on and off site

ACTIONS

104 Develop Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and Outreach Group (SALOG) to assist in partnership working across the WHS.

105 Conduct a survey of the various education groups using the WHS to understand the needs of different groups at all levels of education and to inform learning strategies for Avebury and Stonehenge.

106 Identify opportunities for working with local farmers to provide outdoor educational facilities.

107 Coordinate existing and establish new links with primary and secondary schools.

108 Develop existing and establish new links with universities and tertiary education institutions offering WHS, heritage and archaeological courses. Continue to offer placements to appropriate students.

109 Undertake a needs analysis of requirement for a residential field/education centre. Consider re-use of existing buildings within the WHS or within easy reach.

110 Offer presentations and publications on the WHS, its attributes of OUV and their management for a local, national and international audience.

Stonehenge

111 Review implementation of the Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy. Complete any outstanding actions using Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and Outreach Group (SALOG) network.

Avebury

112 Explore learning opportunities as part of the Avebury WHS Interpretation and Learning Framework including developing educational potential and links with Stonehenge.

113 Develop educational resources based on the WHS ‘Avenue to Learning’ Project.


147

10.5 Community involvement in the WHS

Issue 40: The importance of community involvement for the successful management of the WHS

10.5.1 In 2007 the World Heritage Committee decided144 to add ‘communities’ to the strategic objectives for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention of credibility, conservation, capacity building and communication and create ‘the 5th C’145 This decision recognised that in many instances ‘the control of heritage has been attempted without the support of surrounding communities and in some instances this has resulted in damage being done to both the heritage and the interests of the surrounding communities’.146

10.5.2 The relations between the communities around Stonehenge and Avebury to the WHS differ substantially. At Avebury there is a closer more immediate link to the WHS with homes nestled within the Henge and in the setting of many other monuments in the WHS. Visitors, as discussed in Section 9.0, can have a more direct impact on the residents here. At Stonehenge, the focus of the WHS at the Stones is seen as more distant to the lives of those who live in the neighbouring communities. The recent developments there including the building of the new Visitor Centre and the closure of the A344 have been seen by some as being imposed upon them. All developments go through the usual planning process which allows for public involvement but engagement is usually limited to the formal processes through parish and town councils and those with a particular concern to voice. It can all seem very distant to the majority of the residents. In addition to this, there is a perception that the WHS and the management of Stonehenge by English Heritage is synonymous rather than the reality that English Heritage is one of many partners involved in the management of the WHS. More work needs to be undertaken to change this perception and help both the local community and the wider public understand that both parts of the WHS are managed as a partnership with a large number of public bodies and individuals involved.

10.5.3 At the time of its inscription in 1986, local communities had no involvement in the nomination process. However, as the governance arrangements of the WHS developed, communities have become involved in its management through the representation of the relevant local parish and town

councils on the two local committees. This form of formal engagement is limited in its effectiveness and awareness of the work of the WHS and its effect on local activities amongst the wider local community is generally low. More active engagement with the wider community has been limited to specific projects by partners and at Avebury, in the production of the Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack in 2008.147 The WHS could help contribute to removing clearly identified barriers experienced at a local community level from a social, economic and wellbeing perspective, including issues such as mental health. Solving such issues can be very complex and would involve a range of partners beyond the traditional environmental, heritage and local government structures. The lottery funded project officer approach worked well under Natural England’s now completed Access to Nature Programme including one project local to the WHS at Larkhill and Bulford Camps engaging with military service communities. More work should be undertaken to understand how the local community wish to engage with the World Heritage Site and its partners.

Residents’ Pack

10.5.4 The Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack was launched in July 2008. ‘The presence of a long-established village community at the heart of the Avebury World Heritage Site, partly within the vast stone circle, makes community engagement central to the sustainable management of this half of the Site’s OUV.’148 The pack contains a book, Values and Voices, and information leaflets from the main organisations involved in the management of the World Heritage Site such as the National Trust, Wiltshire Council, Natural England and English Heritage. Values and Voices ‘includes short accessible pieces on Avebury’s many different kinds of significance, from its official OUV to its very personal value to those born and brought up in the parish. Groups and individuals not usually represented on formal management committees, such as pagans and shop owners, also contributed pieces on their particular relationship to the site. The voices are heard side-by-side and equal weight is given to each: academics write alongside other professionals and local residents.’149

10.5.5 The Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack was very well received at the time of its publication but some of the leaflets are now out of date and many people have reflected that Values and Voices is strong enough to be a publication in its own right and would be of interest to many beyond the parish or WHS


boundary. The Residents’ Pack at Avebury should be reviewed, updated and reprinted as appropriate. A digital option should be considered. To complete this action, external funding or sponsorship will be required.

10.5.6 At Stonehenge, the 2009 Management Plan included an action to ‘produce an information pack for all WHS landowners and householders’. This action was not completed, the main barrier being cost. The number of households involved in the Stonehenge WHS is substantially more than that at Avebury. During the review of the 2009 Management Plan it was evident that many believed that a residents’ pack similar in content to that of Avebury would be of benefit to the Stonehenge WHS and provide an opportunity for the community to reflect on what the WHS means to them. It was recognised that with widespread access to the internet, the Stonehenge residents’ pack could be produced with substantial elements using a lower cost web-based format. External grant funding or sponsorship would be required to help develop and publish the content. Information from partners at both Avebury and Stonehenge could be available digitally to reduce costs and to enable it to be more easily updated. (Policy 5c/Action 118)

Oral history

10.5.7 Both the National Trust and English Heritage have already embarked on an extensive oral history project in the Stonehenge WHS and this work should be continued and extended to Avebury.

Projects such as this which involve the local community are aimed at achieving a more positive relationship to the Site by valuing the voices and experiences of the local people as equal to academic or professional ones. Community-based programmes such as the Layers of Larkhill project run by Julian Richards in 2012 and community involvement at the Blick Mead excavations150 in Amesbury demonstrate that local people are interested in their local history and keen to be involved if the right project is presented. (Policy 5c/Action 117)

Localism Act and Neighbourhood Plans

10.5.8 The Localism Act of 2011 aims to ‘devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities more control over housing and planning decisions’.151 In particular it provides for communities to develop ‘Neighbourhood Development Plans’ which would be approved if receiving 50% of the vote in a referendum. These neighbourhood plans establish general planning policies for the development and use of land in a neighbourhood and allow communities to have a voice in how their neighbourhoods develop over time. As English Heritage note in their 2011 publication Knowing Your Place:152 ‘When a community is planning its future, through a Community-Led Plan, it is important to consider its past. By including their heritage in the plan, communities can really get to know the place in which they live. They can ensure it keeps its vitality, sense of identity and individuality. They can choose the best ways for it to develop and grow. They can hand it on – as a place to be proud of – to future generations.’ It is essential that the WHS Coordination Unit partakes in the development of Neighbourhood Plans in order to ensure that the WHS and its values and protection are incorporated into them.

10.5.9 Examples of areas where the local community could be invaluable to the work of the WHS and improve their neighbourhood are projects such as local research and an audit of the Avebury Conservation Area to assist in the development of design principles related to the WHS Transport Strategy.

10.5.10 It is important that the local community is kept involved with the management of the WHS and formal links such as parish and town council representatives on the two local Steering Committees should be maintained together with strengthening links with the Community Area Boards of Marlborough and Amesbury. Minutes of meetings are available to

Launch of the Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack July 2008

© B

rian

Edw

ards


149

all, once approved, on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website. All task and finish groups (see Section 15.4(f )) should include a relevant local community representative where appropriate. This may require looking beyond the named usual parish representative in order to reach the most relevant group within the community. (Policy 5c/Action 114)

Communicating with the local community

10.5.11 A more targeted approach should be developed to communicate with the local community. The voice of the WHS is often hard to hear above the corporate messages from individual organisations. More is discussed on this under Policy 5e but a communication strategy is required to identify who the key target groups are that the WHS should communicate with and how this should be done. The local community is clearly a key group and a regular presence in publications such as parish magazines, The Stonehenge Trader, Upper Kennet News and others would provide a regular channel of communication and presence in the local community.

Community events

10.5.12 Providing an event for the members of the community from both Avebury and Stonehenge is problematic as it requires the expense and time of additional travel for at least one community. The same or similar event could be repeated in each half of the WHS. However, the joint identity of the WHS should be celebrated at least annually and an annual public event would provide a focus for both parts of the WHS and the activities taking place. It could incorporate formal and informal elements with presentations and updates together with stands from partners to show how they contribute to the work of the WHS together with some family activities. An annual forum would provide an excellent

opportunity to showcase the work of the WHS throughout the year and help forge a joint identity as well as providing an opportunity for people from each community to get together. The event might alternate between localities or be at a location such as Devizes, approximately half way between the two sites. (Policy

5c/Action 115)

10.5.13 The centenary of the Great War 1914–18 during the lifetime of this Management Plan is an opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of the area around Stonehenge in the early development of military aviation and the infrastructure that developed prior to, during and after the Great War. The Wylye Valley 1914 project undertaken with the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB demonstrates a community-led approach to exploring community stories153 as does the MoD-led ‘Digging War Horse’ project near Stonehenge.

Local community access to Stonehenge

10.5.14 The new Stonehenge Visitor Centre includes an education space for learning groups to use when visiting, if available and pre-booked. This room could provide a valuable community resource for twilight sessions and during the school holidays at times when educational groups are generally not using this resource. Talks and events could be held in this room without significant additional staff resourcing. A procedure for booking this room could be agreed with English Heritage together with agreed criteria for its use and any terms and conditions or fees that might be applied. (Policy 5c/Action 120)

10.5.15 At Stonehenge, a residents’ pass is available. This entitles qualifying residents to obtain a pass to allow free access to the Visitor Centre and Stones and is available from Amesbury Library. It is estimated that approximately 30,000 residents are entitled to this concession which dates back to 1921. This represents a substantial benefit to local people which has increased with the improvement of facilities and the temporary exhibition space at the Visitor Centre. It should also be noted that both visitors and residents alike are able to access and enjoy large parts of the landscape at both Avebury and Stonehenge through the permissive open access provided by the National Trust and the public rights of way network and permissive paths. This provides a valuable resource to the people living and working in the area. (Policy 5c/Action 119)

WHS residents visit the Later Silbury dig, Summer 2011

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


10.6 Volunteers in the WHS

Volunteers

10.6.1 Volunteering in the WHS involves mostly Wiltshire residents including people from the local communities. The main organisations that manage the attractions within and related to the WHS have a well-developed programme of volunteering. Opportunities vary from removal of scrub in the landscape with the National Trust rangers, to leading educational visits

at Stonehenge or assisting with conservation work at the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums. Volunteering for organisations supporting the work of the WHS amounted to over 85,000 hours in 2013.

10.6.2 Recent activity supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) at Stonehenge, Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums has led to an increase in opportunities for volunteers to become involved. SLOCG has developed a programme of events designed to assist recruit more volunteers and to provide opportunities for volunteers to find out more about the activities of the WHS partners in ‘Volunteers Together’ social events. These have included behind the scenes visits and presentations on various aspects of the work taking place in the WHS. It is hoped that closer links will be developed with Avebury and these kinds of activities could be extended into the work taking place in the Avebury WHS with perhaps a joint annual event celebrating volunteering within both parts of the WHS. (Policy 5c/Action 116)

10.6.3 Volunteering is an excellent way to develop community engagement as it means that the volunteers become involved in the day to day activity taking place within the WHS and so gain familiarity with the work of the partners of the WHS, understand more fully the context in which they work and increase their sense of ownership of the attributes of the WHS.

10.6.4 All projects developed during the lifetime of this Management Plan should consider whether the community can be involved and in particular if there is a role for volunteers and members of the community to take part. (Policy 5c/Action 116)

‘Volunteers Together’ social event Salisbury Museum

© R

uth

Butle

r

Volunteer constructing Neolithic House 2014

Jam

es O

Dav

ies

© D

P163

594

His

tori

c En

glan

d


151

10.7 Using the creative arts sector to help communities engage with

the WHS

Issue 41: The need to meet the demand of the creative sector to use the WHS to continue to inspire local communities and visitors

10.7.1 The use of art and the creative sector as a way of engaging communities with their heritage is well established and used by other WHS in the UK such as the Jurassic Coast as a means of reaching those people who might not normally engage with heritage. The placing of the new WHS Coordination Unit within the Heritage and Arts Team at Wiltshire Council provides an opportunity to work with that team to develop new ways for visitors and residents to engage with and learn about the WHS and also explore the way that artists have responded to the WHS over the years. Wiltshire Council’s Arts Development Team has an excellent network of

Policy 5c – Promote community involvement in the WHS to increase a sense of ownership

ACTIONS

114 Work with the local community to understand how they would most like to be involved with the management of the WHS, the updating of the Management Plan and where appropriate research. Make available WHS minutes and reports on the WHS website.

115 Research options for a community event to celebrate the WHS.

116 Develop volunteering opportunities for participation in the management of the WHS. Integrate volunteer involvement in the delivery of the Management Plan where appropriate.

117 Develop oral history project for the WHS to encourage community engagement.

118 Explore opportunities for delivery of a WHS Residents’ Pack at Stonehenge in the most appropriate format. Allow re-based community to develop in advance of this. Consider appropriate timing for update of the Avebury Pack.

Stonehenge

119 Maintain free entry to Stonehenge Visitor Centre and Stones for local residents.

120 Explore the ways in which the community can use the education room at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre as a community resource.

Policy 5d – Artists and the creative sector will offer new and inspiring ways for communities and a wider range of visitors to engage with and learn about the OUV of the WHS and the wide range of artistic responses to it both past and present

ACTION

121 Develop an Arts Framework articulating the attributes of OUV of the WHS and the potential for their artistic expression.

122 Deliver an artists’ symposium exploring the themes related to the attributes of OUV including the shaping of the WHS landscape.

arts organisations, venues, festivals and practitioners across the county and beyond. This network can be used to deliver partnership events which both inspire and entertain but also engage people with the WHS and its attributes of OUV and allow artists a route to access the WHS as inspiration for their work.

10.7.2 Stonehenge and Avebury have already had an impact on the cultural life through the work of many artists including Turner, Constable and more recently Piper, Nash and Inshaw. The WHS could continue to contribute to the already rich and vibrant cultural life of Wiltshire and several local artists have expressed an interest in being able to use their talents to enrich their work and the lives of others. However, any creative arts programme must give due regard to the attributes of OUV and their protection and would need to consider any impact that traffic and infrastructure required may have on the WHS and the communities within them. In order to manage this process effectively an Arts Framework or Memorandum of Understanding for the WHS should be established by engaging with the rich variety of artists working in all creative sectors to look at opportunities to open up the potential of the WHS and ways of delivering an arts programme whilst protecting the WHS and its attributes of OUV. (Policy 5d/Action 121)

10.7.3 A symposium of artists could explore the themes related to the attributes of OUV including the shaping of the WHS landscape and a plan to implement appropriate ways to deliver this. (Policy 5d/Action 122)


10.8 The identity and message of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

10.8.1 The appointment of an Independent Chair for the newly formed Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and the formation of the WHS Coordination Unit within Wiltshire Council in 2014 are tangible outcomes of the work that has taken place since 2009 to bring both parts of the WHS closer together. This stronger identity as a single Stonehenge and Avebury WHS needs to be clearly presented wherever possible.

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website

10.8.2 In August 2013 a single WHS website www.

stonehengeandaveburywhs.org was launched. This website provides a single port of call for those who wish to find out more about the WHS. It provides links to the English Heritage and National Trust websites so that visitors can find out how to visit the main sites and also provides information on accommodation and other tourism facilities by linking with the VisitWiltshire website. It links to educational resources and events provided by partners such as the Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums and the other members of the SALOG partnership. More work could be done to provide more information on aspects of World Heritage which is not covered by the website of English Heritage and others. This website needs to be maintained and further developed to act as a ‘one stop shop’ for the WHS and in particular for the work related to the ASAHRG and actions related to the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework. (Policy 5e/Action 128)

Megalith

10.8.3 The annual newsletter Megalith, first published in 2012 for the Stonehenge WHS only and from 2013 for both Stonehenge and Avebury, showcases the work of partners in the WHS. It aims to demonstrate the breadth of activities and the number of people involved in the WHS. This newsletter is published as an online PDF document and with a small print run and distributed to local community hubs such as libraries, libraries and community centres in the immediate vicinity of the WHS. This newsletter should continue and develop. E-newsletters can be produced through the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website but requires time resources to develop this facility. (Policy 5e/Action 126)

10.8.4 The WHS also operates a Twitter account as @StoneAveWHS and this communicates events taking place within the WHS and re-tweets postings by other partners.

WHS Communications Strategy

10.8.5 Thus far, the website, Megalith and Twitter have, so far, been used in an ad hoc fashion without any coherent strategy or plan. A WHS Communication Strategy is required to analyse the various stakeholders of the WHS and audiences which the WHS wishes to reach. This strategy should include an analysis of stakeholders and what the key messages of the WHS are and the best way to communicate this throughout the lifetime of this Management Plan. This Strategy would look at the available means of communication and identify other methods and establish how these can be used to best advantage. (Policy 5e/Action 123)

‘The North West Prospect of Stone Henge’ by Inigo Jones 1725

© M

ike

Seaf

orth

J050

111

His

tori

c En

glan

d


153

10.8.6 The establishment of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and the appointment of an independent Chair provide an opportunity for the first time for the whole WHS to have a clear, independent voice on issues which directly concern it. The members of the Partnership Panel represent individual organisations that may on occasion have conflicting viewpoints but it is hoped that in most cases a single ‘World Heritage Site’ view can be established and this view articulated to the press, public and partners of the WHS. In time it is hoped that the WHS will not only be identified with its key partners such as English Heritage and the National Trust but have its own identity separate from those institutions.

10.8.7 In addition to having a single voice the WHS needs a clearer visual identity and presence across the WHS. Marketing materials for the key attractions are inconsistent in whether they include the World Heritage logo and how they refer to the World Heritage Site. An agreed policy is required for how and where the WHS is identified and should include a reference to ‘the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS’ wherever possible in any wording.

WHS branding and signage strategy

10.8.8 There is an authorised logo provided by UNESCO to all World Heritage Sites. This is generally adequate for the purposes of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS, particularly when there is already the danger of any printed or digital material being overwhelmed by the logos of the host of partners working within the WHS. Although many other WHSs in the UK have developed a logo for the purposes of branding and signage, at this time it is not thought necessary that a new Stonehenge and Avebury WHS logo be developed. The question of whether a separate logo is required should however be reviewed from time to time. (Policy 5e/Action 124)

10.8.9 To strengthen the identity of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS any further signage within the WHS should link visually to existing provision. A branding and signage strategy for the whole WHS should be developed in conjunction with the SILPS and (Policy

5a/Action 92) and the proposed AILF. (Policy 5e/Action 124)

Gateway signs

10.8.10 At both Stonehenge and Avebury there are gateway signs installed welcoming visitors to the WHS. At Avebury these were installed some years ago and are now faded and in need of replacement. These are located on the A4, the A361 and the A4361 on the boundaries of the WHS. At Stonehenge, signs were installed on the A303 in 2012 by the Highways Agency. There are however, no signs on other sections of the road network managed by Wiltshire Council. (Any signs on the highway network managed by Wiltshire Council will need to comply with relevant

WO

RLD

HERITAGE PATRIMOIN

E M

ON

DIA

L

PATR

IMONIO MUNDIAL


United Nationsducational cienti c and


Gateway sign on the east bound A303 ©

Bet

h T

hom

as

Gateway sign on the west bound A4

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


statutory requirements.) It is important that both residents and visitors understand the extent of the WHS as it is commonly believed that these simply encompass the main henges and their immediate environs at both sites. A unified approach to the installation of any further signs or replacements should be taken so as to provide a coherent visual identity for the WHS. (Policy 5e/Action 125)

10.8.11 The Operational Guidelines published by UNESCO state that a commemorative plaque should be located at the site to commemorate the site’s inscription onto the World Heritage List154and includes guidelines155 on what this plaque should include. Currently there is no such plaque at either site although reference has been made to WHS status in the new Visitor Centre at Stonehenge. The WHS Coordination Unit should work with English Heritage and the National Trust to locate a WHS plaque at both Stonehenge and Avebury at a key entry point where most visitors will see it. Such plaques are often actively sought by international visitors who collect photographs of themselves alongside them. (Policy 5e/Action 127)

10.9 Meeting the objectives of UNESCO and UK Government

The five ‘C’s

10.9.1 The Strategic objectives of the World Heritage Committee in implementing the World Heritage Convention of 1972 are:

1. Strengthen credibility of the World Heritage List 2. Ensure efficient conservation of World Heritage

properties 3. Promote the development of effective measures to

ensure capacity building 4. Develop communication to increase public

awareness and encourage participation and support for World Heritage

5. Enhance the role of the communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

10.9.2 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Coordinators, partners and stakeholders should look for opportunities to meet these strategic objectives where possible. In this Management Plan we have looked at how efficient conservation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV may be achieved; we have looked at how capacity

building can be achieved through working with communities across the county; and we have discussed strengthening communication and the role of

Policy 5e – Present a unified Stonehenge and Avebury WHS identity and message

ACTIONS

123 Produce a WHS Communications Strategy defining the message, audiences and means of communication.

124 Develop a branding and signage strategy for the whole WHS.

125 Review WHS gateway signage and ensure funding for their re-design, replacement and/or maintenance.

126 Continue to produce the WHS Megalith newsletter to raise the profile of the WHS and the work of its partners.

127 Locate a WHS plaque at both Stonehenge and Avebury in agreement with partners to mark the WHS inscription to meet UNESCO requirements.

128 Develop the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website.Pupils from Sheldon School, Chippenham at the 2012 UNESCO Youth Summit held in Maritime Greenwich WHS

© V

icto

ria

Min

ors


155

communities. Success in these areas will strengthen the credibility of the World Heritage List.

10.9.3 The Stonehenge and Avebury Coordinators, partners and

stakeholders can strengthen the credibility of the World Heritage list by ensuring that key people working within the WHS understand the benefits and obligations of the WHS status and are able to provide information on the WHS status and national and international sites to visitors and residents. To facilitate this, the WHS Coordination Unit should work with partners particularly at museums and history centres to establish interpretation of WHS status and provide training to staff where appropriate. (Policy 5f/Action 129)

World Heritage interpretation centre

10.9.4 The WHS Coordination Unit should work with partners to explore the feasibility of establishing a centre to interpret WHS status and its local, national and international relevance. The United Reformed Chapel at Avebury and the proposed Amesbury History Centre should be considered for such a facility if available. In addition, the feasibility of a study centre for the WHS should be explored. (Policy 5f/Action 130)

Policy 5f – Explore and deliver opportunities to meet the wider objectives of UNESCO and the UK Government

ACTIONS

129 Establish interpretation of WHS status in existing facilities including museums. Train staff where appropriate to provide information on the WHS status and other national and international WHSs.

130 Explore feasibility of establishing a centre to interpret WHS status and its local, national and international relevance. Consider possible study centre. Implement if feasible. Consider Avebury Chapel and/or Amesbury History Centre as a location if available.

131 Develop links with UK and international WHSs to share best practice. Develop reciprocal professional relationships with WHSs that have similar attributes of OUV and management challenges.

United Reformed Chapel Avebury

© B

rian

Edw

ards

World Heritage: UK

10.9.5 The WHS Coordination Unit is a member of the World Heritage UK Forum. World Heritage UK provides a professional network to share best practice across the UK. The WHS Coordination Unit should continue to work with the World Heritage UK Forum to share experiences, best practice and ideas in order to improve the way that the site is managed. Wherever possible the WHS Coordination Unit should develop reciprocal professional links with international WHS to share best practice and develop relationships with WHS that have been designated for similar attributes of OUV and management challenges to Stonehenge and Avebury. (Policy 5f/Action 131)


11.0 ROADS AND TRAFFIC

Aim 6: Reduce significantly the negative impacts of

roads and traffic on the WHS and its attributes of

OUV and increase sustainable access to the WHS

11.0 Introduction

11.0.1 This section sets out the current issues related to roads and traffic and their impact on the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS and its attributes of OUV. It includes a brief discussion of the approaches and actions for addressing them as agreed by WHS partners. It looks at the impact of roads and traffic on the integrity of the WHS, the setting of the monuments and the physical damage caused to both buried and upstanding archaeology.

11.0.2 This section of the Plan also outlines how roads and traffic affect the ability of visitors and the local community to gain greater enjoyment and understanding of the WHS. It considers the ease and confidence with which they can both access and explore the WHS and its wider landscape in light of the physical and psychological barriers that roads and traffic present. Car parking and sustainable travel are closely related considerations which are also discussed. Impacts on the amenity of the local community are considered where relevant in line with the principles of sustainable tourism referred to in Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism).

11.0.3 There has been considerable change in the road network and car parking provision at Stonehenge since 2009. This is outlined together with the situation at present, and related emerging challenges and opportunities are set out. The major development at Avebury has been the production of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy which provides a holistic set of design principles and schemes to address identified road and traffic related issues. A brief outline of recommendations and schemes is included under the relevant issues.

11.1 Highways network and usage

Issue 42: Roads and traffic have an adverse effect on areas of the WHS, its attributes of OUV and its integrity. They dominate the landscape in some areas and sever key relationships between monuments. They have a negative impact on the setting of monuments and the character of the wider landscape through loss of tranquillity, signage, related clutter, inappropriate design, and in some places light pollution

11.1.1 Roads and traffic have long had a major influence on the WHS which is both traversed and surrounded by roads and byways, many of some antiquity. The presence of these roads and byways has played a fundamental role in the development and character of the wider area throughout history. They have also allowed access to the WHS for both residents and visitors and these important roles needs to be maintained. The A303 (trunk) road is managed and maintained by the Highways Agency for the Department for Transport and crosses the WHS at Stonehenge. It is a strategic national road, part of the A303 corridor and recognised by the Government in terms of its role in providing access to the South West and facilitating the economic performance of locations along this corridor. There are also a number of principal A roads and minor B roads within the WHS close to Stonehenge and Avebury. These principal and minor roads are operated and maintained by Wiltshire Council as highway authority and are part of the Council’s highway network. A number of public rights of way (for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and motorists) are located within the WHS and again these are operated and maintained by the Council as highway authority. The presence of routes introduced since prehistory may have long bisected or otherwise overlain the Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape but their impacts have greatly increased over recent generations for a number of reasons including the advent of motorised vehicles, increased car ownership and mobility, and fast expanding domestic and international tourism.

Impact of roads and traffic on integrity and setting

11.1.2 The Statement of Significance for the WHS adopted by UNESCO in 2008 clarified the importance of the interrelationship of monuments and sites, their siting

Traffic on the A303 from Stonehenge

© D

P081

689

His

tori

c En

glan

d


157

in relation to the landscape and the importance of the WHS as a ‘landscape without parallel’. The harmful impacts of roads and traffic on the WHS are clearly articulated in the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Statement of OUV 2013) prepared by the Stonehenge and Avebury Steering Committees and submitted to UNESCO by the UK Government. The Statement of OUV builds on the Statement of Significance adding in statements of integrity, authenticity and outlining the protection and management requirements. It describes the negative impact of busy main roads on the integrity of the WHS, highlighting how they sever key relationships between monuments in the landscape. It also refers to the negative impact on the setting of monuments from traffic noise and visual intrusion as well as the incremental impact of highway-related clutter.

11.1.3 As far back as the original nomination in 1986 the ICOMOS (UNESCO’s adviser on cultural WHSs) evaluation document 156 raised concerns about the negative impact of the A344. At the time of nomination the WHS Committee requested that possible solutions to the problem of the A344 were studied. 157 On inscription they ‘noted with satisfaction the assurances

provided by the authorities of the United Kingdom that the closure of the road which crosses the avenue at Stonehenge was receiving serious consideration as part of the overall plans for the future management of the site.’158 This action was the focus of a number of State of Conservation reports required by UNESCO from the UK Government until its eventual resolution with the partial stopping up of one section of the A344 and the closure of the remainder of the A344 to vehicular traffic by way of a permanent traffic regulation order.

Re-seeding the bed of part of the A344 following its closure in 2013

© R

ache

l Fos

ter

Roads cutting through Avebury Henge

© N

MR

2431

6_00

5 H

isto

ric

Engl

and


Traffic on the A303 within the setting of Stonehenge

© N

atio

nal T

rust

/John

Mill

er

Despite this very substantial progress, the Periodic Report to UNESCO on the condition of the UK’s WHSs continues to highlight transport infrastructure and its use as a significant and increasingly negative factor affecting the WHS. There remain a number of significant challenges related to negative impacts on integrity and setting in both parts of the WHS as set out in this section.

11.1.4 At a national level planning policy and guidance has evolved since the production of both the Avebury 2005 and the Stonehenge 2009 Plans, as discussed in Sections 4.0 (Current Policy Context) and 7.0 (Planning and Policy). This has thrown the impact of roads and traffic on the setting of sites and monuments and the wider WHS landscape into higher relief. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises that WHSs are designated assets of the highest significance to which harm or loss should be wholly exceptional and articulates the important contribution of setting to this significance. Guidance produced by English Heritage, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), further emphasises this relationship and defines setting to include all aspects of the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced beyond the normal visual considerations. This includes aspects relating to roads and traffic such as noise and pollution.

11.1.5 The Management Plan continues to reflect Government transport policy which aims to encourage people to make sustainable transport choices and the Government’s vision for integrated transport journeys. Sustainable travel issues and opportunities are discussed below at 11.5.

11.1.6 Locally, the Wiltshire Core Strategy underlines the need to address issues related to roads and traffic in Core Policy 59. It states that development should be supported that reduces the negative impact of roads, traffic and visitor pressure in the WHS. The policy includes requirements that light pollution and skyglow which could adversely affect the WHS and its attributes of OUV should carefully be managed.159 This is also an issue for highways-related lighting.

Network: Stonehenge

11.1.7 At Stonehenge the A303 trunk road is a highly visible route that cuts through the WHS landscape. The western boundary of the WHS is the A360 and part of the eastern boundary is formed by the A345 which also cuts through the henge at Durrington Walls. The northern boundary of the site is the Packway which is the main access route to the army base at Larkhill. There is a minor road running south from Amesbury through the settlements in the Avon Valley and also Ministry of Defence roads in the Larkhill area. In addition, there are historic byways running primarily north–south through the World Heritage Site as well as a number of public footpaths.

Traffic volume: Stonehenge

11.1.8 Significant volumes of traffic pass through the WHS on the A303 trunk road and also along the other main roads bounding the Site to east and west. 2013 figures from the Department for Transport show daily traffic flows of over 26,700 vehicles. The settlements around the Site and down the Avon Valley generate traffic


159

as does the very large distribution centre at Solstice Park to the east. Stonehenge itself generates traffic with over 1.25 million visitors to the Stones annually most of whom come by car or coach. In the future the Department for Transport predicts that the volume of both commuter and leisure-related traffic is likely to continue to grow in line with national trends, driven by changing social, demographic and economic factors such as the growth agenda in place in LEP Strategic Economic Plans, City Deals and Local Authority Plans. Developments locally which are likely to increase traffic include Solstice Park and the Salisbury Plain Army Basing Programme.

Closure of the A344 to vehicular traffic at

Stonehenge

11.1.9 At Stonehenge major changes to the road network have now been made as part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvement Project. These changes have included the stopping up of the A344 between its junction with the A303 (Stonehenge Bottom) and its junction with Byway 12 and alterations to the road layout at Airman’s Corner Junction and Longbarrow Roundabout to accommodate redirected traffic. Vehicular traffic is now prevented from using the remainder of the A344 from Byway 12 to Airman’s Corner through a permanent traffic regulation order. This has finally fulfilled the UK Government’s undertaking to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription in 1986.

11.1.10 The A344 Stopping Up Order Inquiry formally closed in June 2011. The Inspector’s Report recommended in favour of the stopping up of a section of the A344 and on 1 November 2011 it was agreed by the Department for Transport that an 879m length of the A344 from its junction with the A303 and a 263m stretch of the B3086 from its junction with the A344 should be closed. Following the September 2011 Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Inquiry the Inspector recommended to Wiltshire Council that a TRO should be applied to the remaining section of the A344 but not the byways open to all traffic within the Stonehenge WHS.160 The reasons for exclusion of the byways are discussed further below at 11.4. Wiltshire Council published the decision to put the TRO in place on the A344 on 20 December 2011.161 The permanent TRO was made by the Council on 17 January 2012.162 This has delivered enormous benefits in terms of the integrity of the WHS by reuniting Stonehenge with its Avenue. It has vastly improved the setting of the monuments allowing visitors to experience it without the visual and noise intrusion presented by the traffic.

11.1.11 The Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 recognised that the closure would have considerable implications for traffic movement in and around the WHS including increased traffic loading on surrounding roads, particularly the A360 via Longbarrow Crossroads. It also pointed to the risk that traffic seeking to avoid delay would use the minor roads through settlements such as Larkhill and Durrington. The Management Plan and plans for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre underwent a three-month public consultation that began in July 2008. The stopping up order and proposed traffic regulation orders also underwent a period of statutory consultation. A consultation booklet was mailed to 14,500 local residents and exhibitions were held at both Salisbury and Amesbury. Aim 5 (to reduce the impacts of roads and traffic on the OUV of the WHS and to improve sustainable access) was seen as one of the clear priorities. Although there was local support for the closure of the dangerous A303/A344 junction some local parishes objected to the stopping up of the A344 (part) at the Public Inquiry in June 2011. The A303/A344 was a site with a known history of collisions.

11.1.12 As a result of the changes to the road network some local residents believe that there has been a marked increase in traffic in their villages and a consequent reduction in amenity. Members of the Stonehenge Traffic Action Group (STAG) are concerned about an increase in traffic through Shrewton and the surrounding villages including Bulford and Larkhill since the stopping up of part of the A344 and the TRO made on 17 January 2012. The group support the dualling of the A303 believing that congestion on the A303 has worsened since the closure of the A344 causing drivers to detour via back roads including their villages.

11.1.13 Wiltshire Council as highway and traffic authority has undertaken traffic counts to ascertain the level of traffic using certain roads in the area to assist it in determining the potential effects of levels of increased traffic on local communities in the area and to monitor the impact of the new Visitor Centre, parking provision and associated changes in the road network. (Policy 6a/Action 135)

A303 ongoing impacts

11.1.14 Although the closure of the A344 marks very substantial progress at Stonehenge, the A303 continues to have a major impact on the integrity of the wider WHS, the setting of its monuments and the ability of visitors to explore the southern part of the


Site. The A303 divides the Stonehenge part of the WHS landscape into northern and southern sections diminishing its integrity and severing links between monuments in the two parts. It has significant impacts on the setting of Stonehenge and its Avenue as well as many other monuments that are attributes of OUV including a number of barrow cemeteries. The road and traffic represent visual and aural intrusion and have a major impact on the tranquillity of the WHS. Access to the southern part of the WHS is made both difficult and potentially dangerous by the road. In addition to its impacts on the WHS, reports indicate that the heavy congestion at certain times163 has a negative impact on the economy in the South West and locally and on the amenity of local residents.

11.1.15 The A303 is part of the Strategic Road Network, and is deemed by the Secretary of State for Transport as a nationally significant road. Finding workable solutions is a challenging issue. There have been a number of studies over the years into options for improving the A303 and the setting of Stonehenge but none have yet reached the implementation stage. Proposals to improve the stretch of the A303 through the WHS date back to the early 1990s when the process of identifying alternative routes was started. In 1998 the Highways Agency began developing a scheme for putting the A303 in a tunnel under the central part of the WHS. In 2002 a partially bored tunnel scheme of 2.1km in length (the Published Scheme) was proposed past Stonehenge with the remainder of the A303 in the WHS also dualled and a proposed bypass for Winterbourne Stoke. The scheme was the subject of a Public Inquiry held in 2004.

11.1.16 The Inspector’s Report, published in July 2005, recommended in favour of the scheme promoted at the Inquiry. However, as a result of a substantial increase in the estimated cost of the tunnelling, the Government at the time decided to review whether the scheme still represented value for money and the best option for delivering improvements to the A303 and to the setting of Stonehenge. Following the review, the Government stated that ‘due to significant environmental constraints across the whole of the World Heritage Site, there are no acceptable alternatives to the 2.1km bored tunnel scheme’,164 but that its cost could not at that time, December 2007, be justified when set against wider objectives and priorities. The need to find a solution to the negative impacts of the A303 remains a key challenge for the WHS and its partners. The Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 retained the long-term objective of reducing the impacts of the A303 within the WHS. The Wiltshire Core Strategy165 recognises the need to work collaboratively with agencies to achieve ‘an acceptable solution to the dualling of the A303 that does not adversely affect the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its setting’.166

11.1.17 A solution for the A303 is once again under consideration at the time of writing. Following the 2013 Spending Review, the Government announced that it would identify and fund solutions to tackle some of the notorious and long-standing highways-related issues on the Strategic Road Network. Following feasibility studies by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2014, opportunities were identified in six areas across the UK for future investment solutions that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money. The A303/A30/A358 corridor is one of those six areas.

Map from 2006 consultation on alternative routes to the A303 tunnel recommended by the 2004 public inquiry (red dashes). The consultation favoured the red route


161

11.1.18 A feasibility study was undertaken on the A303/A30/A358 corridor route conditions in terms of congestion, journey times, safety and environmental considerations. A study Reference Group was established to capture stakeholder views. A number of locations were proposed for improvements, including the Amesbury to Berwick Down section that passes through the WHS.

11.1.19 The stakeholder reference group set up to inform the A303/A30/A358 corridor feasibility study included, among others, representatives from English Heritage, the National Trust, Wiltshire Council and the Chairman of the WHS Partnership Panel. A Technical Working Group was formed specifically to consider options for A303 improvements between Amesbury and Berwick Down. The Technical Working Group agreed three key outcomes against which options should be tested: the OUV of the WHS is conserved and enhanced; current and predicted traffic problems are comprehensively resolved; and social and economic growth is delivered for local communities and the wider South West. Improvements to the WHS landscape have the potential to contribute to the last through greater access to the landscape and enhanced sustainable tourism opportunities. (Policy 6a/Action 133)

11.1.20 An intention to dual the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down, with a twin-bored tunnel of at least 1.8 miles (2.9km) within the WHS was announced by the Government on 1 December 2014.167 Detailed work is required to assess, agree and finalise a scheme. DCMS has informed UNESCO’S World Heritage Committee of the Government’s intention and they have passed this on to ICOMOS their advisers on cultural WHSs who will decide on the appropriate timing and extent of advice. ICOMOS-UK has been approached for comment and/or advice and will be invited to consider options as they emerge. The WHS is recognised by the DfT as a key environmental consideration. The scheme identified would need to be assessed for its likely impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV including the interrelationships of monuments, their settings and relationship to the landscape and the integrity of the wider WHS landscape. Significant developments within the WHS should be assessed using the Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties produced by the International Commission for Monuments and Sites168 ICOMOS is the advisory body to UNESCO on proposals for change affecting cultural WHSs which are referred to in NPPF Planning Practice Guidance.169 It provides a framework for assessing impacts on the attributes of OUV and the OUV of the WHS itself. In addition, such

a significant scheme would need to be assessed against the full range of economic, social and environmental impact criteria as required by the planning system; and would be likely to undergo the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project planning process.

11.1.21 The future of the A303 is clearly the major road and

traffic issue facing the Stonehenge half of the WHS.

Network: Avebury

11.1.22 At Avebury two strategic A roads have a major impact on the integrity of the WHS, the setting of its monuments and visitors’ ability to enjoy and explore the landscape. The A4 crosses the area east to west from Marlborough to Bath and the West Country. The road has a significant impact on the setting of Silbury Hill and separates monuments in the north of the WHS from both the West and East Kennet Long Barrows and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures in the south. At Overton Hill it severs a key link between the Sanctuary and the associated Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery to the north. Crossing the A4, particularly at Overton Hill, feels precarious making exploration of the landscape less attractive. The A4 joins the A361 which runs south–west towards Devizes from the roundabout in Beckhampton.

11.1.23 The A4361 links Swindon to the A4 and A361 at Beckhampton. It passes through the village of Avebury and has a direct impact on the integrity and setting of the Avebury Henge and Stone Circle which it bisects. In addition Green Street also known as the Herepath, a byway open to all traffic, runs east from the Henge while Avebury High Street runs to the west. This effectively divides the Henge into four sectors, a major impact on its integrity and the ability of visitors to understand the monument. The B4003, a single carriageway road, leaves the A4361 within the Avebury Henge and runs southward beside and at some points across the West Kennet Avenue to reach the A4 at West Kennett. In addition to the Herepath another key historic byway, the Ridgeway National Trail, starts in the Avebury WHS and runs eastward for 139km towards Ivinghoe Beacon in Buckinghamshire. The area is well served by public footpaths.

Traffic volume

11.1.24 Visitor numbers are around a quarter of those at Stonehenge, but at around 350,000 visitors per annum arriving mostly by private car this still generates significant traffic flow. Traffic counts however indicate


that as stated in the 2005 Management Plan, the major percentage of traffic is related to commuter movements. Two-way traffic flow data put daily traffic at West Kennett on the A4 at 8,324 and at 6,447 on the A4361. Directional peak flow data shows that the A4 has a commuter flow pattern with high peaks in the morning and the evening. The A4361 data from Avebury also shows a peak flow in the morning towards Swindon. The fact that traffic volume is not predominantly influenced by visitor traffic to the WHS indicates that sustainable transport solutions for visitors to the WHS alone are unlikely to entirely reduce impacts on the integrity and setting of monuments.

11.1.25 Despite a prediction that traffic volume would continue to rise in the Avebury Management Plan 2005, annual traffic count data over the period 1998 to 2010 show that numbers have remained relatively stable on the A4361, A4 and A361. This is unlikely to remain the case in the future due to increasing development pressures as a result of current economic policies for growth.

Avebury WHS Transport Strategy

11.1.26 As noted in the Introduction one of the key developments related to roads and traffic over the last Plan period has been the production of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy.

11.1.27 Many of the objectives and strategies set out in the initial 1998 Avebury Management Plan were carried forward to the updated version in 2005 and continued to be difficult to deliver. Although measurable progress has been made against objectives, more fundamental improvements have not been completely achieved.

11.1.28 The Traffic and Visitor Management group (TVM) identified the lack of a holistic framework or strategy addressing road and traffic issues across the WHS landscape as a key barrier to implementation. Other barriers to implementation included: in some cases no single preferred option identified; no developed guidance on how to approach the design of solutions within the WHS; and insufficient ownership or buy-in to the strategies proposed. In addition a number of isolated ad hoc interventions were recognised as having had an intrusive urbanising impact on the setting of monuments and the wider landscape.

11.1.29 The TVM recommended the production of a comprehensive Transport Strategy to include a set of design principles and interrelated schemes to deliver solutions. This was approved by the Steering Committee in May 2010. Wiltshire Council and the North Wessex Downs AONB agreed to fund the project. A senior officer from the highways department of Wiltshire Council managed the project undertaken by Wiltshire Council’s consultant Atkins with a team of transport planners as well as heritage and landscape advisers and engineers. A task and finish group was set up by the Avebury WHS Steering Committee in April 2013 with representatives of the relevant partners including English Heritage, the National Trust, Avebury Parish Council, Wiltshire Council transport planners, highways engineers, conservation officers and the Archaeology Service, North Wessex Downs AONB and Wiltshire Police to ensure agreement and buy-in.

11.1.30 The Avebury Parish Traffic Plan was also under preparation alongside the WHS Transport Strategy. The final draft of this plan was produced in June 2013. It identifies the main concerns of the local community related to roads and traffic in the Parish. The plan is subtitled Traffic Management in a World Heritage Site and one of its stated aims is to promote interventions that help to reduce the dominance of roads, traffic and related clutter to enhance the attributes of OUV. It calls for specially designed, sensitive solutions to achieve this and offers an unusual and commendable global/local perspective in a Parish Traffic Plan. The Avebury Parish Traffic Plan was a key document in informing the WHS Transport Strategy. The Strategy includes schemes to meet the community’s aspirations where at all possible.

Avebury WHS Transport Strategy 2015


163

11.1.31 Up to date information from vehicle and speed counts as well as vehicle collision data and visitor transport surveys informed the development of a new set of issues, objectives and strategies for the WHS Management Plan update. They were signed off by the Avebury Steering Committee in April 2013 and used to shape the objectives of the Transport Strategy. The retrospective Statement of OUV adopted by UNESCO in 2013 and current transport planning best practice also helped to shape these objectives. The Transport Strategy has established an approach to new interventions and replacement works within the WHS agreed by delivery partners, curators, managers and representatives of the local community to balance the concerns of all parties and safeguard the WHS while retaining a viable transport network. Alongside a set of WHS Design Principles a series of outline schemes under eight themes are proposed. These themes include:

Prevent damage to the attributes of OUV Develop a well-connected pedestrian/cycle network Reduce severance of the A4 Manage visitor impact on Avebury village Improve sustainable travel infrastructure Promote sustainable travel Increase stakeholder buy-in.

A number of the outline schemes will need to go through the process of public consultation before final decisions can be made on their implementation. They may also in some cases require Scheduled Monument Consent and/or the relevant licences if on National Trust land. In addition the designs will need to be worked up, consulted on and funding identified for delivery.

11.1.32 The schemes are described in outline where they provide solutions to the issues discussed below. The schemes were designed for the Avebury part of the WHS. The Design Principles could be applied across the WHS although this will need to be carefully assessed for appropriateness, developed further and agreed with the Stonehenge Steering Committee (Policy 6a/Action 136). Opportunities should be sought to deliver those schemes that appear in the Strategy but which are not mentioned below. (Policy 6a/Action 142)

A4 and A4361: mitigating the impact

11.1.33 The impact of the road network on the integrity of the WHS and the setting of its sites and monuments and the wider WHS landscape is summarised above at 11.1.22–3. The major negative impacts are caused by

the A4 and the A4361 which run either close to or, in the case of the latter, through major monuments. The A4361 bisects the Henge and Stone Circles and has a serious impact on its integrity and the ability of visitors to understand and explore the monument. The A4 severs key interrelationships between monuments and has a significant impact on their setting. The volume, speed and noise of traffic travelling on the A4 have a detrimental impact on the context in which Silbury Hill is experienced. This is also the case in the Henge where visitors are in close proximity to the road. Although the A361 has an impact on the wider WHS landscape, its position in relation to the attributes of OUV makes it a less urgent management issue.

11.1.34 The impact of the road network and associated traffic is no less significant than that of the A303 at Stonehenge discussed above despite the far lower number of vehicles. It is extremely unlikely however that major engineering solutions such as tunnelling or the construction of a bypass would be appropriate in the Avebury part of the WHS due to the presence of historic villages, the position of the roads in relation to the monuments and the sensitivity of the North Wessex Downs AONB landscape. The idea of a bypass was first discussed in the 1960s. It was however dropped from 1981 Wiltshire Structure Plan and from the Avebury Local Plan in 1992 as unlikely to offer a feasible solution.

11.1.35 The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy170, a report prepared for the Avebury WHS Steering Committee by Atkins, includes a number of more easily deliverable schemes which propose ways to mitigate the impacts of roads and associated traffic on the WHS, its attributes of OUV and its integrity. Those directly related to the A4 are outlined below as well as those designed to reduce impact on the setting of monuments across the

The A4 separates the Sanctuary from Overton Hill barrow cemetery at the ‘gateway’ to Avebury WHS

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


11.1.38 The B4003 is considered to have a significant impact on both the integrity and setting of the Henge and the West Kennet Avenue as well as making it difficult for visitors to move between the two interrelated monuments. This and the issue of significant damage as well as the proposed scheme to address it are discussed below at 11.1.46–47.

Signage, clutter, environmentally insensitive

design and light pollution

11.1.39 The Statement of OUV recognises that at both Stonehenge and Avebury a major impact on the setting of monuments and on the wider WHS landscape is created by the clutter and often insensitive design associated with roads and traffic. It highlights the need to carefully manage the incremental impact of highway-related clutter. This can include excessive, inappropriate and unnecessary signage as well as the application of standard designs for highways interventions that might be more appropriate in an urban environment. It can also include the impacts of lighting related to streets, roads and roundabouts and the associated light pollution and damage to dark night skies. This is detrimental to the tranquil, rural character of the WHS, the setting of the monuments and the ability to perceive the relationship of the monuments to the landscape and the sky; important attributes of OUV. Policy

1e/Action 11 of this Plan is to develop guidelines building on existing evidence and guidance to avoid light pollution and negative impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This should include advice relevant to highways interventions.

11.1.40 The Avebury Parish Traffic Plan sets out a number of key concerns of the local community. One of these is the perceived need for road signs, road treatments, or other alterations that are sensitively designed to enhance the attributes of OUV of the World Heritage Site and require some exceptions and variations from conventional highway signing and measures. It should be borne in mind however that some highways signing is mandatory.

11.1.41 Wiltshire Council as a highway and traffic authority has a number of duties concerning the safety of users of the highways (vehicular, equestrian and pedestrian) and maintenance of the highways including rights of way. A sensitive approach to assessment of need, design and location can ensure that this can be balanced with the protection and enhancement the WHS. The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy provides a solution to this issue in its Design Principles that

WHS. Schemes 3.1–3.5 of the WHS Transport Strategy are designed to reduce the negative impact of the A4 at the most sensitive points along its route most notably at key monuments and gateways to the WHS. These include the East Gateway/Sanctuary, West Kennett, Silbury Hill/West Kennet Long Barrow, Beckhampton and the West Gateway/Knoll Down. These involve narrowing the carriageway by extending the grass verges. The narrower carriageway will reduce speed and associated loss of tranquillity. It will also make crossing the road easier.

11.1.36 Another measure for reducing the impact of the road includes low noise surfacing recommended throughout the WHS when surfaces are due for replacement. The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy outlines the advantages and disadvantages of any proposed road schemes. Related schemes include signage and soft measures to affect long-distance routing which aims to reduce the volume of traffic passing through the WHS, particularly HGVs. The proposed renewal of gateway signage should alert drivers that they are entering a special environment and encourage them to drive more responsibly. The recurring narrowing at key points on the route should maintain a lower speed along the length of the A4 throughout the WHS. At West Kennett the scheme also includes measures to encourage sustainable transport and exploration of the wider WHS. Measures at the Beckhampton roundabout and on its approaches aim to minimise its dominance and contribution to light pollution through a design providing a more rural appearance to encourage reduced speeds. Further details of these schemes can be found in the WHS Transport Strategy. The holistic and interrelated schemes by their nature address a number of issues and opportunities. This is best communicated by reading the Strategy document itself. (Policy 6a/

Action 139)

11.1.37 Schemes related to the A4361 include WHS-wide ones such as low noise surfacing and long-distance routing as well as more geographically specific ones such as encouraging slower speeds between the National Trust car park and the wooded area east of Beckhampton roundabout and between the Henge and Rutlands Farm. Improved crossing points are proposed on the A4361 including the one between the National Trust car park and New Bridge. It is proposed that the Red Lion Public Realm scheme will extend the village character to this area including the carriageway to create a pedestrian friendly environment and safer crossing point within the Henge. (Policy 6a/Action 140, 142)


165

should be considered for application across both parts of the WHS. It sets out Design Principles against which any future proposal for transport-related change or maintenance can be developed. They include principles on the general approach to design in the WHS and more specific guidance for different areas or types of intervention including: village realm, roads, signage, parking, crossing roads and sustainable infrastructure. The Principles are set out in the Transport Strategy document.

11.1.42 During the development of the Design Principles it was noted that further detailed information on the character of conservation areas within the Avebury part of the WHS would be helpful in further fine-tuning design of any interventions in these areas. Due to the limited public resources this could be undertaken in the form of a community audit with the advice of conservation professionals. (Policy 6a/Action 137)

11.1.43 Further Transport Strategy schemes to address the issue of clutter at Avebury include a Signing Audit to remove redundant or move intrusively located signage. Scheme 7.1 is the production of branded WHS visitor signing which aims to reduce visual clutter through providing consistency. This could be considered for application across the WHS although further work would be required as set out above.

Issue 43: Possible future development and changes in farming practice could result in an increase in traffic and HGV movements

Impact of development on traffic

11.1.44 New development in the region or locally has the potential to have a significant impact on the volume and type of traffic arriving in or passing through the WHS. This applies to both Stonehenge and Avebury. Large transport depots or waste recycling units outside the WHS for example may greatly

increase traffic volume and probably involve an increase in HGV traffic. Locally, within the WHS and its setting, housing or agricultural development such as large grain drying facilities may result in a similar increase. In some cases this can lead to consequential development such as the need for additional tracks if the increase in traffic is unsustainable for the local community. It is important that when a development proposal is submitted the traffic implications are carefully considered for possible impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Specific WHS related criteria need to be identified that would trigger development-related transport assessments for proposals within the WHS and its wider setting to ensure negative impacts are identified and are considered during the decision-making process. These triggers should be included in the Council’s WHS SPD or relevant planning guidance discussed in Section 7.0 (Planning and Policy). (Policy 6a/Action 132)

Issue 44: Vehicle damage is occurring to upstanding and buried archaeology on roads in some parts of the WHS

Damage to archaeology: West Kennet Avenue and

the B4003

11.1.45 The Statement of OUV refers to the issue of direct damage to the fabric of some monuments under the section on protection and management requirements. This section deals with damage related to roads rather than byways open to all traffic such as Byway 12 at Stonehenge and the Ridgeway National Trail at Avebury. These are discussed in Section 11.4 below.

11.1.46 No incidence of damage from roads was reported at Stonehenge. The main incident reported in 2010 during the life of the last Plan was damage to the West Kennet Avenue in Avebury from vehicles using the B4003. This single carriageway link leaves the A4361 and joins the A4 at West Kennett running alongside and in some places over the West Kennet Avenue, a Guardianship Monument and an important attribute of OUV. Its impact on the setting of the Henge and West Kennet Avenue and disruption of the relationship between the two monuments has been noted above at 11.1.23.

11.1.47 In some places the B4003 is very narrow and two cars can barely pass. The 2005 Avebury Plan raised concern over the erosion caused by vehicles along the narrow parts of the B4003 and the development of unofficial lay-bys affecting archaeological deposits. The Plan mentioned that double yellow lines had been provided on parts of the road to address this. It also

Signage on the A4 for Silbury Hill car park

© B

eth

Tho

mas


suggested exploring a range of options for dealing with damage caused by vehicles travelling along the road.

11.1.48 The English Heritage Field Warden submitted a damage report on the West Kennet Avenue in 2010. The report highlighted damage to the verges on both sides of the B4003 between Avebury Stone Circle and the A4 at West Kennett. The report suggested that the problem appeared to have been caused by vehicles pulling onto the roadside verge when meeting wide vehicles (tractors, buses and HGVs) coming in the opposite direction. Although the damage was limited it predicted that if the situation continued it would become more serious and spread into the upper layers of the monument. The double yellow lines were not deterring parking in the unofficial lay-bys which are both within the scheduled area, one of which is within the Avenue itself. Standard highway maintenance approaches were exacerbating the damage. Scheduled Monument consent should be sought before maintenance is carried out and

methodologies agreed with English Heritage and the National Trust. The report suggested that in the long term, the closure of the B4003 to all but essential users such as emergency vehicles, farmers and disabled badge users would be desirable.

11.1.49 Wiltshire Council conducted an initial options appraisal on solutions to the damage on West Kennet Avenue in 2010. Early recommendations included exploring a one-way or partial one-way system. The issue has been re-evaluated as part of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy produced by Atkins in 2015. A solution was identified that would both protect the internationally significant archaeology and provide a range of other benefits meeting the objectives of the holistic strategy and the aims and policies of the WHS. The study recommends the closure of the B4003 except for access for local landowners and farmers. This would protect the archaeology, enhance the setting of the West Kennet Avenue and the Henge, restore their interrelationship and provide a good quality walking environment and cycling route

The B4003 runs alongside and in some places over the West Kennet Avenue resulting in vehicle damage to the monument

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


167

while avoiding the need for additional signage and clutter. It could also help improve road safety by the junctions with the A4361 and the A4 at the village of West Kennett where right turns have resulted in some collisions. The removal of the junction and turning would also facilitate the delivery of the scheme at West Kennett related to diminishing the impact of the A4 mentioned above at 11.1.36. Any proposed road closure would be subject to the statutory consultation process set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Council, as highway and traffic authority, would also be required to have regard to its duty set out in s.122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable parking facilities on and off the highway, before deciding whether or not it is expedient to make a traffic regulation order to prohibit vehicular traffic.

11.1.50 The closure of the B4003 would deliver numerous benefits as set out above but it is likely to cause concern amongst some residents who regularly use the road to avoid the extra distance and inconvenience of travelling on the A4 via Beckhampton. Some may also enjoy driving along the route. Having said this some residents will benefit from reduced commuter traffic following any road closure. Prior to any implementation further feasibility studies would need to undertaken and detailed designs drawn up. Any proposed road closure would be subject to the statutory consultation process and requirements in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and as set out above in 11.1.49. (Policy 6a/Action 138)

11.2 Road safety and ease of movement

Issue 45: Conflict between the movement of pedestrians and cyclists with motorised traffic creates road safety issues in some areas and in others the perception of danger which discourages access, exploration, understanding and enjoyment of the WHS

11.2.1 The Statement of OUV highlights the need to identify actions to address negative impacts on the ease and confidence with which visitors and the local community are able to explore the wider property. It identifies the A303 as continuing to have a negative impact on visitor access to some parts of the wider landscape. Safety and the perception of danger are likely to influence people’s ability and willingness to explore the WHS landscape.

Safety

11.2.2 Road safety has been a significant issue particularly in the Stonehenge part of the WHS. Recent changes may have helped to address this to some extent through closure of the A344/A303 junction which had a history of collisions.

11.2.3 At Stonehenge, prior to the closure of the A344 there were regular collisions in this area, in particular at the junction with the A303, at Airman’s Corner junction, and on the A344 near the entrance to the Stonehenge car park. From 2005 to 2008, there were 72 casualties in the WHS, including two fatalities and nine serious injuries. At this stage it is too early to understand the impacts of the overall changes to the road network. A number of new risks have arisen as a result of the changes including an increase in use of the A303/Byway 12 junction and conflicts between motorised vehicles and pedestrians on the now closed A344. This will require ongoing monitoring and any negative impacts will need to be addressed. (Policy 6a/Action 135)

11.2.4 The Avebury part of the WHS has not suffered from the same level of collisions. In the period from June 2009 to May 2014, 29 collisions were recorded, of which 19 took place on the A4 east of Beckhampton and 9 on the A4361. There was one collision at the junction of the B4003 with the A4 and another with the A4361. There was one collision at the A4361/NT car park and another at the A4/Silbury Hill car park junctions. Two collisions occurred on the Beckhampton roundabout. There were 39 casualties: 8 serious and 31 slight.171 Although no fatalities were reported for Avebury, a fatal road accident that occurred at Silbury Hill in the summer of 2014 is currently under investigation. Safety remains a key issue despite the low level of recorded collisions. The high number of pedestrian movements particularly in the Avebury Henge area means that large numbers of visitors are regularly in close contact with traffic. In addition to this risk there is the issue of lost opportunities for exploring the WHS. Perceived danger is likely to have discouraged many from exploring the WHS especially in areas where crossing points are particularly precarious such as between Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery and the Sanctuary.

Safe crossing points

11.2.5 Improving facilities for pedestrians namely the provision of safe crossing points will reduce the risk of collisions and facilitate exploration of the WHS landscape. Improved crossing arrangements for roads traversed


by the rights of way network should be provided as a priority. All crossing points should adhere to the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy Design Principles to ensure they do not have a negative impact on monuments, their setting and the wider landscape.

11.2.6 At Stonehenge a solution needs to be identified to help visitors reach the southern part of the WHS, currently severed from the northern part by the A303, with its well-preserved monuments and impressive landscape views to Stonehenge and other attributes of OUV. This issue should be considered as part of any project designed to solve its wider impact on the WHS as well its economic and social impacts. If no major scheme is forthcoming, other options need to be explored to provide a safe crossing point for the A303 such as approaching the landowner regarding the use of an existing underpass that is currently on private land and therefore inaccessible. In addition, a safe route for walkers and cyclists to the Stones for those not wishing to take the shuttle bus from the Stonehenge Visitor Centre should be investigated. A route along the A344 is discussed at Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism) and included as an action under Policy 4c. English Heritage should work with partners to identify management strategies to minimise conflict between users of the section of the A344 subject to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) including vehicles, equestrians, walkers and cyclists. (Policy 6c/Action 147)

11.2.7 At Avebury the WHS Transport Strategy schemes that include the provision of safer crossing points need to be implemented. A crossing away from the brow of the hill is recommended at Overton Hill and in the

longer term consideration of the more ambitious option of providing a tunnel for pedestrians to reach the Sanctuary. (Policy 6a/Action 139, 140, 142)

11.2.8 A further approach to improving safety by reducing conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorised vehicles is to provide an adequate network of WHS way-marked public rights of way and permissive paths in both parts of the WHS to suit different visitor needs. The network should where possible link key monuments and visitor facilities such as parking areas and bus stops and thereby minimise exposure to roads and traffic. The need for safe crossing points should be investigated and if appropriate provided where the network encounters roads. The planned WHS Landscape Access Strategy aims to improve access to the wider landscape and is discussed further in Section 9.0. The Strategy should take into account safety objectives in its identification of gaps in the rights of way and cycle path network and consequent recommendations. The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy includes initial suggestions for filling gaps identified at Avebury in its Connected Path Network Scheme. For further details refer to the Transport Strategy.

Speed

11.2.9 National speed limits do not take into account the unusual number of visitor movements within the WHS. Although current speed limits may be considered appropriate based on national guidelines and there are few recorded incidents of illegal speeding, they are still too high to allow visitors and residents to feel safe enough to explore the landscape where they need to pass in close proximity to fast roads.

11.2.10 All roads within the Stonehenge part of the WHS are currently subject to the national speed limit (60 miles per hour) except roads within built-up areas. As such, many vehicles pass through the WHS at high speed. The volume and speed of traffic on the A303 makes it very difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to cross it, for instance, when travelling on Byway 12 from Stonehenge to the Normanton Down Barrows or from Bridleway 10 on King Barrow Ridge to the southern side of the WHS. However, it is recognised that it would not be practical or effective simply to reduce the speed limit on the A303 and other WHS roads. Other measures would have to be sought as set out above to allow pedestrians and cyclists to feel safe near these roads.

11.2.11 At Avebury all roads are subject to the national speed limits of 60 miles an hour other than the 30 mph zone Walking along the busy A4 near Silbury Hill

© B

eth

Tho

mas


169

which exists on the A4361 through the Avebury village. This runs from just north of the Manor drive to New Bridge around 200m to the south of the Henge. A speed limit of 30 mph was also instigated along Green Street. Wiltshire Council undertook and completed a countywide speed limit review in 2011 based on the Department for Transport Circular 01/06 Setting Local Speed Limits. No changes were recommended to the national speed limit on the A roads across the Avebury area. A further review of speed data undertaken in 2012 by Wiltshire Council in preparation for the WHS Transport Strategy indicated that speeding was not an issue in the WHS.

11.2.12 As discussed above national speed limits do not take into account the WHS context and the high level of visitor movements. The Avebury WHS Transport Strategy recommends a number of schemes that include elements to reduce speed. This is not only to reduce impact on the setting of monuments as set out above but also to encourage visitors to feel safe to explore the WHS and use the planned safe crossing points. The schemes related to reducing the severance of the A4 aim to reduce speed by narrowing of the carriageway rather than the imposition of speed limits with associated signage. The Red Lion Public Realm scheme should also result in slower speeds by narrowing the carriageway and extending the village character to this area. A road safety audit would need to be carried out before any work to narrow the carriageway is implemented to ensure any potential risks are minimised. In addition the Strategy proposes an extension of the 30 mph limit through the Henge northwards to Rutlands Farm on the A4361 and southwards between the National Trust Car Park and the wooded areas east of Beckhampton Roundabout. (Policy 6a/Action 142)

11.2.13 The schemes above go some way to meeting one of the solutions proposed by Avebury Parish Traffic Plan which seeks to reduce speeds on the A and B roads through the Parish.

11.3 Car parking facilities and usage

Issue 46: Current car parking provision does not meet demand at peak visitor times. Its location does not facilitate exploration of the wider landscape

11.3.1 Car parking is a challenging issue in both parts of the WHS. Although it is very important to provide facilities to allow access for the many visitors who travel by car and coach, this needs to balanced against the impact of car parks, parked vehicles and visitor numbers on the attributes of OUV including the monuments, their settings and the wider WHS landscape. There is also a commitment to encourage sustainable transport to the WHS as discussed at 11.5 below. Other considerations include how location of car parking affects the ability of visitors to access the wider landscape and the impacts of insufficient or inconveniently located parking on the amenity of local communities if visitors compete with residents for spaces and create congestion in villages.

Capacity and location: Stonehenge

11.3.2 Since the opening of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre, visitors can no longer park at Stonehenge itself. The previous car park and visitor facilities have now been decommissioned and car parking is provided at the Visitor Centre. Visitors need to take the shuttle from the Visitor Centre or walk around 2km from the Airman’s Corner site through the WHS landscape to reach the monument. There is parking for 500 cars (360 hard standing and 140

Visitor transport at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre

© B

eth

Tho

mas


the landscape. If not properly managed, increased use of Larkhill for parking runs the risk of causing problems to the local community. As discussed at 11.5 below, public transport is limited. The Salisbury Plain Army Basing Programme due for completion by 2020 includes development at Larkhill which may provide opportunities for a suitable parking facility. This should be raised with the MoD and Defence Infrastructure Organisation, English Heritage and the Planning Department of Wiltshire Council. There is an action to explore options for alternative parking under Policy 4c that seeks to encourage access and circulation to the WHS landscape.

11.3.5 Plans for the provision of further parking in Amesbury should take into consideration both the needs of local residents as well as those of visitors wishing to access the WHS on foot or via other sustainable transport.

11.3.6 The car park at Woodhenge and Durrington Walls has a negative impact on the setting of the monument as it is in too close proximity. Partners need to review its position as part of a project aimed at enhancing the setting and integrity of monuments in the area. This project will also need to consider the removal of the old road and related scrub. This is discussed further in Section 8.0 (Conservation).

Capacity and location: Avebury

11.3.7 At Avebury there are similar issues with capacity in the main National Trust car park. During peak visitor periods, including pagan observances, visitors are asked to return at a less busy time or advised to visit nearby National Trust properties. This may increase the likelihood of visitors trying to park in the High Street or in other informal areas such the unofficial lay-bys on the B4003. More effective signage at the National Trust car park should be considered as part of a signage audit to discourage visitors from looking for parking elsewhere in the village area and in addition to improve safety at the junction with the A4361. The National Trust has a system of timed tickets in place for the Manor to assist in managing demand for parking at busy periods. The southern car park has approximately 290 spaces. Current car parking fees are £7 (£4 after 3pm) but free to National Trust and English Heritage members. Other car parks in the WHS are free. The Silbury Hill car park has approximately 28 spaces. The West Kennet Long Barrow lay-by has space for approximately eight cars. A further lay-by some 150–200m to the west provides around six spaces. The Sanctuary lay-by has space for approximately 14 cars, although an unofficial parking area is located opposite the lay-by. The National Trust owned car park in the High Street is currently used for disabled

grass) and 30 coaches. Coaches are also able to drop off visitors and find parking elsewhere outside the WHS. Parking is included in the cost of entry to Stonehenge by pre-booked ticket. If visitors do not wish to go to exhibitions or visit the monument they can pay a parking fee of £5. Members of English Heritage or the National Trust may park for free. If the car park is nearing capacity, parking spaces will be retained for those with pre-booked tickets. In this case those wishing to explore the wider WHS cannot do so unless they have pre-booked and paid for entry or have pre-booked and are members of EH or the NT.

11.3.3 Previously there were only 123 formal and 150 overflow parking spaces available. Although there is now almost double the number of spaces, capacity is regularly exceeded particularly during the school holidays. This appears to be due to the popularity of the new Visitor Centre and the extended dwell time as visitors explore the exhibitions and visit Stonehenge. When capacity is reached visitors are encouraged to return at a less busy time or visit other nearby attractions. At the time of writing the Visitor Centre has been open for just over one year so it is difficult to assess accurately whether the present provision is adequate. This will need to be carefully monitored over the life of the Plan. If, following a review based on evidence gathered, the need for additional capacity is indicated, very careful consideration would need to be given to the impacts of any additional facilities on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Improved sustainable transport options and the feasibility of parking provision outside the WHS and its setting should be considered as a priority as part of any review. Implications related to the consequent increase in visitor numbers would need to be carefully considered. (Policy 6a/Action 135)

11.3.4 There is little alternative formal car parking provision within the Stonehenge part of the WHS. This creates an issue for visitors who do not wish to go the Visitor Centre but would like to explore the wider WHS landscape or take advantage of the recreational opportunities for activities such as walking or picnicking. It is also problematic for WHS partners, including the National Trust, who organise activities such as guided walks, tours and events in the Stonehenge landscape. Amesbury town centre can provide car parking and facilities but this is some distance from the main areas of interest and will only appeal to keen walkers who would need to cross the A303 or use the Countess Road underpass to reach the monuments in the northern part of the WHS. The existing car park at Woodhenge is limited to a small number of cars. There are no facilities such as public toilets or information to assist visitors in exploring


171

and residents’ only parking. There is an additional Natural England car park at Manton which provides access to Fyfield Down NNR, but this is at some distance from the main Avebury monuments and only suitable for those wishing to visit Fyfield or for keen walkers. This is reached by turning left off the A4 before reaching Marlborough.

11.3.8 Increasing parking provision would not be appropriate in the Avebury part of the WHS. A tourism policy on car parking saved from the Kennet Local Plan (TR9) and now included in the current Wiltshire Core Strategy states that there should be no significant net increase in the number of formal car parking spaces within the Avebury part of the WHS. (The policy is included at Appendix H.) This policy aims to control visitor numbers, footfall and consequent impacts on the WHS. Consideration of off-site parking would, in line with this policy, also entail a reduction in the number of on-site parking places. The implications of such a scheme would require careful assessment. The current policy of redirecting visitors at peak times and avoiding promotion and events in these periods appears to be effective. The Transport Strategy advises that all relevant partners should agree a consistent promotional policy to assist in managing demand and consequent impacts on the WHS, its attributes of OUV and the amenity of the local community.

11.3.9 The location of the main visitor car park south of Avebury Henge tends to concentrate visitor pressure at the Stone Circles and on Avebury village. This can create issues such as congestion in the village and marked pinch points and desire lines which would in fact be the case wherever parking is limited to a single main area. It is however not only the position of the car park that centres visitors on Avebury but visitor motivation. The museums, Manor, shops, cafés and pub are focal points for visitor interest in addition of course to Avebury Henge and Stone Circles. According to a recent parking survey undertaken by Wiltshire Council in 2013, the average stay in the car park was between 1

Entrance to main National Trust car park at Avebury ©

Nat

iona

l Tru

st/E

lean

or E

aton

and 2 hours. The National Trust reports a similar dwell time indicating that visitors are not exploring far beyond Avebury. Those who do, often drive between the monuments using the available car parking and lay-bys.

11.3.10 For those wishing to explore the wider WHS, Policy TR9 provides for visitor dispersal by permitting the creation of small car parks elsewhere within the WHS where they would have no negative impact on the setting of monuments or the wider WHS landscape. The challenge of identifying possible locations that would meet these requirements would be fairly considerable although opportunities should be considered when they arise. Proposed schemes from the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy aimed at reducing the intrusion of the A4 through the narrowing of the carriageway and other interventions may present opportunities for small areas of additional parking for those who wish to explore the wider landscape. It seems that at present the appropriate and deliverable solution would be for partners to provide information on the existing parking facilities within the WHS discussed at 11.3.7 above. Partners need to agree an approach to raising awareness of and providing information on the location of these car parks and opportunities for exploration of the WHS that they offer. Improving facilities for pedestrians through the provision of safe crossing points and improvements to the footpath network as recommended in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy and the forthcoming Landscape Access Strategy should be provided to ensure visitors are able to explore with confidence and in safety.

11.3.11 A survey was conducted in 2003 by Parkman to look at a possible alternative to the main southern car park in Avebury. A site north of Avebury on the eastern side of the A4361 was surveyed. The constraints

Unofficial parking at the start of the Ridgeway National Trail

© S

teve

n Ta

bbitt


identified in addition to cost included pedestrian safety and the need for the extension of footways within sensitive archaeological areas and concerns over landscape impact. In 2007 the National Trust considered a site to the north but on the western side. This proved equally problematical at the feasibility stage and was abandoned.

11.3.12 Local residents’ concerns regarding visitor parking in Avebury High Street have been temporarily addressed by the placement of a number of large community

Policy 6a – Identify and implement measures to reduce the negative impacts of roads, traffic and parking on the WHS and to improve road safety and the ease and confidence with which residents and visitors can explore the WHS

ACTIONS

132 Review trigger criteria for when development-related transport assessments within the WHS and its wider setting should be produced.

Stonehenge

133 Seek a solution to the negative impact of the A303 on the WHS, its attributes of OUV and its setting in order to sustain its OUV and enhance the Site’s integrity. Work with partners to identify such a solution that also addresses current and predicted traffic problems and assists in delivery of social and economic growth.

134 Review the current access to and within the WHS and associated A303 crossing points for non-motorised users with the aim of improving accessibility.

135 Monitor how the new Visitor Centre parking provision and closure of A344 impacts on traffic, the local community and visitors. Address any identified negative impacts.

Avebury

136 Adhere to the Design Principles included in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy for all Highways interventions within the Avebury WHS and its setting including road signage. Review possible application in Stonehenge WHS.

137 Undertake a community conservation areas audit to help inform Transport Strategy interventions.

138 Review, develop and consult on measures for the B4003 identified in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy to prevent damage from traffic to the West Kennet Avenue and facilitate movement of visitors within the WHS. Implement agreed outcomes.

139 Review, develop and consult on measures identified to reduce the negative impact of the A4 on the WHS, its attributes of OUV and visitor movement. Implement agreed outcomes.

140 Where possible provide safe crossing points in accordance with the WHS Design Principles for visitors both in the Henge and between key monuments in the WHS.

141 Reduce parking congestion in the Henge/village area on peak days. Disperse pressure away from the centre of the WHS. Enforce existing parking restrictions in the High Street. Implement new restrictions as outlined in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy (adhere to saved policy TR9 in Wiltshire Core Strategy on car parking in Avebury).

142 Identify opportunities for implementing remaining recommendations of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy.

planters which effectively prevent parking. The WHS Transport Strategy suggests that these are replaced with a formal residents’ only parking scheme both in the High Street and on Green Street. This could be augmented by narrowing the effective carriageway at the entrance to the High Street by introducing a sarsen sett margin and other measures proposed in the Transport Strategy (Policy 6a/Action 141). A road safety audit would need to be carried out before any work to narrow the carriageway is implemented to ensure any potential risks are minimised.

11.4 Byways

Issue 47: Damage to archaeology is occurring on byways open to all traffic in the WHS. There are also problems with parking and road safety at junctions

11.4.1 The current rights of motorised vehicular access on existing byways within the WHS are a key concern. The impact of vehicles on byways open to all traffic (BOATs) was raised as an issue in both the Avebury

2005 and Stonehenge 2009 Management Plans. Ongoing issues related to vehicle use include direct physical damage to archaeology, negative impacts on the setting of monuments and the wider landscape through illegal parking, impacts on other users and safety at junctions of BOATs with main roads.

11.4.2 Damage by motorised vehicles to upstanding and buried archaeology can be severe. The WHS Condition Survey172 noted that instances of vehicle damage in the WHS


173

had increased from previous surveys and is resulting in the rapid deterioration of certain monuments that contribute to OUV. A particular area of concern is damage to monuments on BOATs within the WHS which accounts for nearly 20% of all vehicle impacts within the Stonehenge area but makes up 50% of the most severe level of vehicles damage. 50% of these were recorded on Byway 12. The greatest areas of concern at Avebury are the Ridgeway and the Herepath. The WHS Condition Survey (2012) recommended that where damage is due to vehicles on BOATs a TRO be sought to remove motorised vehicles. Any proposed closure of the BOATS in the WHS would be subject to the statutory consultation process set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Council as highway and traffic authority would also be required to have regard to its duty set out in s.122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) before deciding whether or not it is expedient to make a TRO to prohibit vehicular traffic.

11.4.3 At Stonehenge a TRO was sought for the A344 and a number of byways as part of the Environmental Improvement Project. A Public Inquiry was held in September 2011. The Inspector’s report to Wiltshire Council published in November 2011173 recommended that a TRO be placed on the A344 but not on the byways in the WHS. The Inspector’s reason for this included uncertainty over the origin of vehicular damage on Byway 12 which he considered might have stemmed from agricultural access and in addition to motorised recreational use. He suggested that alternative management approaches could be employed to deter parking and the consequent damage to setting. The Inspector recognised the safety issues with the junction A303/Byway 12 junction and recommended no right turn should be permitted. An experimental TRO prohibiting right turns from Byway 12 onto the A303 was put in place in October 2013 and the Council is preparing a report on whether or not to make this permanent following public consultation. Ongoing damage and safety issues should be carefully monitored. Visual impacts on the setting of monuments and wider WHS landscape should also be monitored.

11.4.4 At Avebury a TRO is in place on the Ridgeway during the winter months from 1 October to 30 April. This helps to protect to some extent the delicate archaeology beneath the National Trail during the worst weather when it is most likely to be damaged by vehicular access. Work undertaken by volunteers from AAHRG confirmed through extensive survey that the 7.2km-long section of the route running through the WHS is a more or less

continuous archaeological site with features ranging in date from at least the Middle Bronze Age onwards. The presence of so much fragile archaeology underpins the need to treat the area with great sensitivity. The Ridgeway Surface Protection Group led by Wiltshire Council has been looking at management options that will provide an acceptable surface for a National Trail yet protect the delicate archaeology. Possible approaches to explore this range from the development of a sensitive maintenance scheme with an appropriate methodology for each of the sensitive features within the WHS to an extension of TRO. The latter may be appropriate if the United Kingdom continues to experience wet summers. An appropriate approach to choice of surfaces, repair and maintenance regime should be agreed for public rights of way throughout the WHS. (Policy 6b/Action 144)

11.4.5 Impacts of motorised access on byways open to all traffic in the WHS should be monitored and the most appropriate management response identified and implemented. (Policy 6b/Action 143)

Damage on the Ridgeway National Trail caused by motorised vehicle use, 2014

© S

teve

Tab

bitt

Policy 6b – Manage vehicular access to byways within the World Heritage Site to avoid damage to archaeology, improve safety and encourage exploration of the landscape on foot whilst maintaining access for emergency, operational and farm vehicles and landowners

ACTIONS

143 Monitor the use of byways open to all traffic (BOATS) and seek appropriate traffic management interventions where vehicular access damages archaeology, diminishes safety, impedes or discourages movement and/or impacts adversely on settings including Byway 12 at Stonehenge and the Ridgeway National Trail at Avebury.

144 Agree appropriate protocols for surface maintenance and repair on public rights of way within the WHS.


11.5 Public transport provision and sustainable travel to the WHS

Issue 48: Access by sustainable transport to the WHS and between Stonehenge and Avebury is limited

11.5.1 To reduce the impact of traffic and parking on the WHS and its residents as well as for the general environmental benefit visitors should be encouraged to arrive by more sustainable means of transport than by private car. This section outlines the current provision of public transport and ease of access through sustainable transport options to the WHS and between its two parts: Stonehenge and Avebury. The issue of limited provision is discussed and opportunities and agreed actions set out for improving sustainable travel which includes the production of a Sustainable Transport Strategy aimed at reducing reliance on the private car to access the WHS. Sustainable access for visitors within the wider WHS is discussed in Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism). This includes a planned extended Landscape Access Strategy which will need to be developed in conjunction with the Sustainable Transport Strategy.

Current provision and opportunities

11.5.2 At Stonehenge the majority of visitors arrive by private transport: approximately 50% by car and 50% by private coach. Few arrive by public transport. Bus service provision to the Visitor Centre and the wider WHS is relatively limited. The successful commercially run Stonehenge Tour Bus travelling from Salisbury railway station to Stonehenge via Old Sarum operates on every day throughout the year. However, this is a relatively expensive option for users. Improving opportunities for visitors to access the WHS by affordable public transport from Salisbury, Amesbury and Devizes, and the railway station at Salisbury,

should be considered. Public transport links from local villages are particularly poor which is problematic both for visitors staying locally, staff working on site and for the community. These should be improved as part of the Sustainable Access Strategy. (Policy 6c/

Action 148)

11.5.3 Most rail users arrive at Salisbury but other links could be established for visitors arriving by promoting Grateley Station on the Waterloo to Exeter line or Pewsey railway station with its direct link to London Paddington, due to their proximity to the WHS. These stations could also provide important ‘hubs’ for connecting the two parts of the WHS and other WHS destinations further afield, such as Bath. At the time of writing, there is a proposal to provide a Wilton Parkway station as part of the TransWilts Railway initiative. This could provide a useful additional rail connection and transport hub for both residents and visitors.

11.5.4 At Avebury a recent snapshot study conducted in 2013 indicated that c 85% of visitors had arrived by car. This has remained fairly stable since the ASH Consulting survey in 1997 when 84% of visitors arrived by private car. The Stagecoach 49 service

The bus stop at the Red Lion in the Henge. The 49 bus runs hourly from Swindon railway station to Trowbridge via Avebury

© L

aura

Gos

ling

Stonehenge Tour Bus

© D

iana

Jarv

is


175

provides a good hourly service to and from Avebury to the towns of Swindon, Trowbridge and Devizes. However, local services to Marlborough are not as regular; the Connect 2 Service has to be pre-booked, and timetabled services offer just one morning and afternoon service on weekdays. On Sundays the 49 bus service only runs between Swindon and Devizes. Bus connections linking Avebury with Great Bedwyn, Pewsey and Chippenham are poor, which means that there is limited opportunity to promote sustainable transport options to Avebury via rail. The only exception is Swindon which is served well in terms of links to Avebury by the 49 Stagecoach service.

11.5.5 Currently there is no direct public transport link between Avebury and Stonehenge. Travelling between the two parts of the WHS would involve a number of changes on existing bus routes. A search made on the Connecting Wiltshire travel planner suggested a route taking approximately 3 hours on a weekday between 10am and 4pm to reach Stonehenge from Avebury. There is clearly a need to investigate options for providing a bus linking the two parts of the WHS. There are a number of examples of successful and commercially viable services linking elements of other UK WHSs including one at the Jurassic Coast which was originally partially grant funded by the local authority but now operates on a purely commercial basis. The visitor survey carried out in 2013 in Avebury indicated that approximately 40% of those asked would have been interested in using this link to explore the WHS. Further market research needs to be undertaken to review the feasibility of a commercial bus service linking

Walkers in the WHS

© H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Stonehenge and Avebury (Policy 6c/Action 146). Although in the current economic climate local authority funding is unlikely, the possible sustainable tourism benefits might justify investment. Possible benefits should be assessed during the development of the Sustainable Tourism Strategy. Another possible driver for extending bus services in the Stonehenge area is the planned Salisbury Plain Army Basing Programme which is likely to increase demand locally.

11.5.6 One way of increasing access to and within the Site might be an ‘explore bus’ service which could drop off and pick up tourists at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre or Avebury village centre, in local settlements and at various other monuments or points of interest within the WHS. This could further be extended with a shuttle service between Stonehenge and Avebury for the WHS to be explored to its full extent. The ‘Henge Hopper’ pilot project led by Wiltshire Museum took place in 2011/12. It was supported by the North Wessex Downs AONB Sustainable Development Fund and Wiltshire Community Area Board. It ran between Stonehenge and Avebury via Devizes with an opportunity to stop at Wiltshire Museum. Its popularity demonstrated that there is a demand for such a service and highlighted the significant resources required for promotion and integration with other transport. Unfortunately funding was limited to a single season. (Policy 6c/Action 146)

11.5.7 Wiltshire is well served by its public rights of way and cycle path network which supports truly sustainable transport options. Existing routes provide links to both parts of the WHS and between Stonehenge


and Avebury. Gaps in networks within the WHS and from surrounding villages should be reviewed and addressed as part of the Landscape Access Strategy. The Sustainable Transport Strategy should review links between Stonehenge and Avebury and seek to develop routes in line with the Wiltshire Council Countryside Access Improvement Plan (CAIP 2014) and Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011–2026 Cycling Strategy. In addition to the challenge of crossing the A303 a known gap in existing cycle ways exists between Bulford and Amesbury. At Avebury, Sustrans are currently reviewing route issues on NCN 4 and 45 at Calne and Compton Bassett. NCN 403 also passes through Avebury. Identifying a recommended walking or cycling route between Stonehenge and Avebury will require careful consideration of environmental sensitivities and appropriate monitoring and management regimes will need to be put in place prior to any promotion. This might be best achieved as a partnership project (Policy 6c/Action 146). Links between other WHSs were explored as part of the South West WHS Sustainable Transport Initiative and a map and website were produced in 2008. Opportunities for further joint working should be explored.

11.5.8 Schemes included in the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy could be applied across the WHS to promote the use of sustainable transport. In addition to commercial services and ‘explore bus’ options discussed above, it suggests improvements in sustainable travel infrastructure and promotion of sustainable travel schemes. Improvements to cycle parking at monuments and visitor facilities are recommended and improved bus stops that are named to reflect the WHS monuments they serve. It is important to apply the Avebury WHS Design Principles in relation to any proposed changes in infrastructure within the WHS. The Strategy recommends the promotion of existing bus routes through advertising links to the WHS and possible combined bus/rail tickets. In addition it suggests ensuring the Connect2 semi-demand response service runs past the main monuments and that its booking system is integrated with WHS visit information. The Strategy highlights the need for all partners to provide consistent travel information including a link to the Connecting Wiltshire website. In addition clear onward travel information should be provided at all relevant railway stations.

(Policy 6c/Action 145, 149)

Policy 6c – Take measures through sustainable transport planning to encourage access to the WHS other than by car

ACTIONS

145 Promote current sustainable transport options for travel to the WHS and information available prior to visit. Agree and coordinate messages with WHS partners. Include links to the Connecting Wiltshire website.

146 Develop a Sustainable Transport Strategy for the WHS to reduce parking pressure and deliver environmental benefits: (a) Include measures to improve links between Stonehenge and Avebury as part of the Sustainable Transport Strategy; (b) Undertake market research to review feasibility of a commercial bus service linking Stonehenge and Avebury and explore feasibility with bus companies; (c) explore affordable options for local community.

Stonehenge

147 Identify management strategies to minimise conflict between users of the section of the A344 which is subject to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) including vehicles, horses, walkers, cyclists and horse drawn carriages.

148 Improve bus links from surrounding towns and villages to Stonehenge.

Avebury

149 Implement sustainable transport actions from Avebury WHS Transport Strategy: improved cycle and bus infrastructure; promotion through improved journey planning and bus routes.

11.5.9 An increased uptake of improved sustainable transport options for accessing the WHS or the provision of off-site parking such as a park and ride facility could result in increased visitor numbers if car parking spaces are maintained at their current level. A review should be undertaken of the possible impacts of any proposed off-site parking arrangements or increased commercial bus services on the WHS and its OUV and the amenity of local residents in line with the Limits of Acceptable Change model (LAC) discussed in Section 9.0 (Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism).

11.5.10 WHS partners have agreed to develop a Sustainable Transport Strategy to apply to both parts of Site. It should aim to reduce parking pressure and deliver environmental benefits. It should expand on the already existing Green Travel Plan produced as part of


177

planning conditions for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and reflect the aims recommendations of the Avebury WHS Transport Strategy. As a minimum the Sustainable Transport Strategy should address the following areas (Policy 6c/Action 146):

Review of good practice across WHSs Produce comprehensive assessment of the

public transport network to each half of the WHS and between Stonehenge and Avebury

Review footpath and cycle way links to the WHS and between Stonehenge and Avebury

Undertake market research to review feasibility of a commercial bus service linking Stonehenge and Avebury

Provide consistent information on journey planning across WHS partners

Agree targeted promotion of sustainable transport opportunities including possibility of reduced tickets across WHS partners’ network and other combined ticketing opportunities

Explore affordable transport options for the local community

Review opportunities for bus links from surrounding towns and villages to Stonehenge

Review options for bicycle hire at bus and railway stations

Review the possibility of a sustainable parking solution outside the WHS.

12.0 RESEARCH

Aim 7: Encourage and promote sustainable research

to improve understanding of the archaeological,

historic and environmental value of the WHS

necessary for its appropriate management. Maximise

the public benefit of this research

12.0 Introduction

12.0.1 This section considers the importance of research in developing our understanding of the WHS and informing exemplary management. It discusses the need to ensure that a careful balance is achieved between research and conservation of the archaeological resource in the WHS. Principles for sustainable research are set out. In addition the role of the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework and the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group in encouraging targeted and sustainable research is explained.

12.0.2 To realise the sustainability and public benefit of archaeological research, it is essential that adequate long-term and accessible storage facilities are available for the fieldwork records, site archives, finds and samples it produces. Efficient approaches to information management are also key. Actions to support this are set out here. Access to this data for researchers and the wider public is another key issue and this is explored, as well as approaches to maximising dissemination of results and the public benefits of research through interpretation, education and community engagement. Finally the importance of research into other values associated with the WHS is highlighted with particular emphasis on the natural environment and the opportunities that joint prioritisation projects offer for the improved management of the attributes of OUV.

12.1 The importance of research in the WHS

Issue 49: Research is central to expanding our understanding of the WHS and its OUV and informing its management

Importance of research

12.1.1 Research plays a vital role in understanding and managing the WHS. It is only because of past research into the monuments of the WHS, from that of the early antiquarians to the present day, that we have any informed understanding of these WHS landscapes. Moreover, the centuries of research around Stonehenge and Avebury have been highly influential in the formation of the discipline of archaeology and in developing its techniques of investigation, from excavation through to the wide range of survey methods and forms of scientific analysis.

12.1.2 It is widely accepted that places are better managed when they are understood well (English Heritage’s (now Historic England’s) Conservation Principles – Principle 3). The Historic England ‘Heritage Cycle’174 demonstrates how greater understanding leads to valuing, caring and enjoyment of the historic environment. Continued archaeological research in and around the WHS is therefore essential. However it must be recognised that unnecessarily intrusive/destructive research within the WHS could have a negative impact on its attributes of OUV which include the physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments and associated sites. Sustainable research is discussed below at 12.2.


New discoveries and future potential

12.1.3 A number of fieldwork projects have been undertaken within the WHS since the publication of the last Stonehenge and Avebury Management Plans. These include excavations by universities from both the UK and abroad as well as English Heritage, and commercial units undertaking development-led work. A number of significant new discoveries have been made (see Part One, Section 3.5: Changes in Knowledge). Programmes of non-intrusive investigation have taken place aimed at advancing knowledge of the archaeological landscape as well as the improvement of both strategic decisions and day to day management. The number of new discoveries in this relatively limited period underlines the need to manage not only the known archaeology but the very rich potential that the WHS represents.

12.1.4 Research should be understood in its widest sense. In addition to research aimed at increasing our understanding related to the attributes of OUV we should continue to undertake research aimed at directly informing management. An example of this is the archaeological survey of the Ridgeway National Trail

within the Avebury WHS. This was undertaken by members of the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG) in 2008 for the Ridgeway Surface Protection Group to inform a management and maintenance strategy for the National Trail that would avoid damage to archaeology. Primarily aimed at informing management, the outcomes have increased

The South East part of the Avebury WHS: a digital image derived from airborne lidar survey, shaded from the North West

© C

.A. S

hell,

bas

ed o

n En

viro

nmen

t A

genc

y G

eom

atic

s lid

ar d

ata

Archaeological Investigation Team at Stonehenge

© H

isto

ric

Engl

and


179

our understanding of the WHS revealing a more or less continuous archaeological palimpsest with features ranging in date from at least the Middle Bronze Age.

12.2 Sustainable archaeological research

Issue 50: Research within the WHS should be of the highest quality and sustainable

Sustainable research

12.2.1 Archaeological excavation could be described as an essentially intrusive process as it removes and in many cases destroys the deposits under investigation. ‘The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites’ are an attribute of OUV and it is therefore essential that gains in our understanding of the WHS are made in a sustainable way. Sustainable research can be defined as: ‘meeting today’s need for improved knowledge and understanding of the WHS without jeopardising the ability of future generations to do the same’ (Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005).

12.2.2 Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF) (2015) emphasises the need to consider the potential value of research and carefully balance this against its impacts on the resource. Any use of methods that will have a direct, intrusive impact on the undisturbed resource needs to be fully justified as the most appropriate for the task. In addition it must represent a valuable enhancement of our understanding of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. As stated in the Stonehenge Research Framework: ‘The guiding principle here relates to the balance between the perceived value and importance of the issue, and the rarity and value of the material available to address it’.175

12.2.3 When research projects proposing to use intrusive or destructive methods could be carried out elsewhere, they should be undertaken outside the WHS. In addition re-opening of previous trenches should be considered in order to address research questions with limited impact on the resource (SARF 2015). Non-destructive research such as reviewing past projects and archives should also be undertaken particularly where new technological or scientific methods may be able to add value to previous studies or contribute new knowledge. ASAHRG and its members should look at opportunities for promoting creative PhD partnerships that might be able to undertake research in this area. In addition it is important to encourage the publication and dissemination of previously unpublished research which cannot be considered sustainable until its results are made available to contribute to the understanding of the WHS. (Policy 7a/Action 154, 155)

12.2.4 SARF sets out four principles that should underpin all research: in addition to sustainability, best practice and communication and engagement, it advocates innovation. This latter principle, in addition to retaining the important role of the WHS as an area for innovative ways of investigating the archaeological resource, encourages the use of the continually advancing technology available for less intrusive research. Communication and engagement is discussed below at 12.8.

12.2.5 In assessing applications to undertake fieldwork on its Estates within the WHS the National Trust encourages and supports sustainable research, as outlined in SARF (2015).

12.2.6 Additional guidance on sustainable research, the ‘Statement of Principles Governing Archaeological Work’ in January 2002 (Appendix L), was produced by English Heritage, the National Trust and Wiltshire Council. It sets out the need for undertaking full and detailed non-destructive archaeological investigations before undertaking excavation. These principles were agreed by the Stonehenge WHS Committee. A review and update of these principles would be timely to reflect progress in the techniques available. English Heritage has also set out guidelines for undertaking excavation within the ‘Stonehenge Triangle’ (English Heritage Advisory Committee (EHAC) paper 2007).

WHS guidance

12.2.7 Guidance should be provided for the whole WHS on sustainable excavation emphasising the use of non-invasive survey where possible and appropriate. In line with the

Avebury WHS Research Agenda AAHRG 2000


requirement to sustain OUV, excavation should only be undertaken where it is the most appropriate method to achieve the required advances in understanding outlined in SARF. (Policy 7a/Action 152)

12.2.8 The principle set out in SARF requiring all research in the WHS to adhere to best practice, which will often exceed minimum standards, also contributes to sustainability. This is crucial as outside scheduled areas and National Trust land there is no minimum standard in place apart from the documents mentioned in the above paragraphs. The Institute for Archaeologists Code of Conduct176 and English Heritage’s Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE) guidelines177 should be adhered to within the WHS and its setting as a minimum.

12.2.9 Following the process set out in SARF prior to undertaking research will also help to encourage sustainable research. First contact should be with the Wiltshire Council Archaeology Service. For both academic research and development-led fieldwork, a detailed project design should be submitted to the County Archaeology Service for approval. Project design should demonstrate appropriate use of non-invasive techniques before any planned excavations. A project design should be submitted to the National Trust for research on their land and to Historic England if it involves a scheduled monument. ASAHRG should be involved early in the process in an advisory role.

12.3 Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework

Issue 51: The role of the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework

12.3.1 A research framework encourages researchers to focus on the most pertinent questions and those that will best help to expand our understanding of the WHS. This focus helps to ensure that interventions provide valuable results so balancing the need for sometimes invasive techniques where they are the most appropriate route to achieving the answers sought.

12.3.2 The need for continuing research and the concept of a research agenda were a key issue for the Stonehenge 2000 Management Plan. Avebury already had a research agenda that was produced from contributions by members of AAHRG in 2000. An archaeological research framework for Stonehenge was published in 2005. 178 SARF (2015) is a combined research framework for the whole WHS. This has involved an extensive update of the resource assessment for Avebury by individual academics and an update for Stonehenge by the original author. The agenda and strategy for both parts of the WHS have been developed by Wessex Archaeology in consultation with a wide range of academics. The SARF will be an evolving document that will be modified as the results of research emerge and new questions arise which test our understanding of the monuments, sites and the landscape.

12.3.3 The overarching aim of SARF is to recognise the importance of research in the WHS and actively to encourage, within a conservation ethic, well-planned, focused research to the highest standards

12.3.4 The research framework, comprises three main elements: a resource assessment which includes a statement of our current knowledge and a description of the resource; a research agenda representing a statement of the main gaps, issues and priorities for new research; and finally a research strategy which is a statement of how the questions set out in the agenda should be taken forward.

12.3.5 The key aims of the Research Strategy are to:to promote and facilitate innovative research of the highest quality in the WHS which will both protect and enhance its characteristics of OUV, and contribute to its management;

to set out the core principles (incorporating best practice, innovation, sustainability, and communication and engagement), which will guide the conduct of

Stonehenge magnetometer survey: Hidden Landscapes project

© 2

014

LBI A

rchP

ro, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d


181

research projects; to promote collaboration and coordination within

the research community of the WHS, by agreeing a process that will guide the planning, funding, conduct and dissemination of research projects;

to establish a process by which the Research Framework, and its component parts, can be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. (SARF 2015)

12.3.6 SARF will be published in 2015 and widely distributed in digital format.

12.3.7 Success in implementing SARF will depend in part on continuing commitment to the monitoring and updating of the Framework to ensure it remains current. ASAHRG would be the most appropriate body to promote SARF and oversee its update. Data generated by related research should be lodged with the Historic Environment Record (HER) and Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigations (OASIS). (Policy 7a /Action 151)

12.3.8 In addition to SARF, there is a more detailed research plan specifically for the guardianship monument of Stonehenge currently under preparation by English Heritage. This supports a new conservation statement for the monument due in 2015, setting out research priorities so that the organisation can be more proactive with regard to excavation requests and management of the monument. It is intended to be fully cross-referenced with SARF and for the two documents to complement one another in this area.

12.4 Archaeological research themes and questions

Issue 52: Research should aim to expand our understanding of the WHS and its OUV

Research themes: OUV

12.4.1 In its Research Agenda SARF sets out six research themes which are of direct relevance to OUV alongside its period-based themes. These six themes relate to the seven attributes of OUV set out in Part One, Section 2.3 of this Plan. The six main OUV-related themes and their overarching objectives are listed below. The relevant attributes are indicated in brackets:

Connected landscapes: to gain a better understanding of the complex monumental and mortuary landscapes of the two areas of the WHS – how and why they developed and changed; which

elements of the landscapes were connected and how they were connected; how far those connections extended, and for how long they persisted. (Attributes 5, 6)

Ceremonial monuments: to gain a better understanding of the social, symbolic and (in some cases) technological contexts of the communal ritual and ceremonial monuments, individually and in groups – why they were built and altered; why they took the forms they did, and what they meant; what they were for, and what activities took place at them; why they were abandoned. (Attributes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Burials and barrows: to gain a better understanding of how the Early Bronze Age mortuary landscape, dominated by round barrows, developed from the Neolithic monumental landscape – the factors that determined the locations of barrows, and how cemeteries developed; their chronology and dating the significance of their variations in form, scale, elaboration, contents and burial practices; their secondary burials. (Attributes 2, 3, 5, 6)

Landscape history and memory: to gain a better understanding of the changing, long-term histories of the two areas of the WHS, and particular locations within them – how places came to be seen as significant; how their meanings changed over time, and how they came to be viewed and treated after their periods of primary use had ended. (Attributes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

Human generations: to gain a better understanding, from the analysis of human remains, of the generations of people who have populated the WHS – their origins, diversity, movements, demography, health, diet and conflicts. (Attributes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Secular life: to gain a better understanding of the changing, day to day domestic, social, working and economic lives of those living within, or passing through, the WHS landscapes, both as they related to the construction and use of its prehistoric ritual monuments and separate from any involvement with them. (Attributes 3, 6)

12.4.2 Questions are set out under each of these themes and under period-based themes. These may be pursued in a variety of ways, through national heritage agencies, local authorities, archaeological contractors and consultants, universities, amateur societies and groups. As mentioned at 12.2.3 above creative PhD partnerships could also be encouraged to address these questions. There has been no attempt to prioritise them, as researchers will wish or need to choose their focus in response to a range of interests, opportunities and/or constraints. (Policy 7a/Action 150)


International research links

12.4.3 SARF emphasises that the research questions are ‘an indication of the wide range of possibility which the rich archaeological resource of the WHS has to answer important questions about the past (and hence the present)’. It also emphasises that the questions apply not only to the WHS and its environs but to its wider national and international context. This aligns with the international role of UNESCO. International research links should be encouraged particularly with WHSs with similar interests. (Policy 7a/Action 153)

12.5 Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

Issue 53: There is a new joint research group for Stonehenge and Avebury

AAHRG becomes ASAHRG

12.5.1 The Stonehenge Management Plan in both 2000 (4.7.3) and 2009 (11.6.1) underlined the aspiration of establishing a research group for Stonehenge. At that time it had no dedicated research group although expert academics had been brought together from time to time to advise on specific projects. At Avebury there was a well-established research group, the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG). AAHRG produced the Research Agenda for the Avebury part of the WHS,179 the first research framework for a WHS in the UK, and possibly in the world. The 2000 WHS Management Plan advised that a new group should be set up, working in conjunction with AAHRG, or as an independent group with formal links.

Between the Monuments excavation beside West Kennet Avenue, 2014

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds

12.5.2 The joint Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) held its first meeting in February 2014. The new joint research group was established following recommendations set out in the governance review report for the World Heritage Site completed in 2012. The report recommended the formation of a joint self-regulating Stonehenge and Avebury Standing Conference to promote and disseminate historical and archaeological research on the WHS as whole. This accorded with the move to greater coordination between Avebury and Stonehenge reflected in the new governance structure agreed by both Steering Committees in April 2013 and the establishment of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Partnership Panel.

12.5.3 A small working group consisting of AAHRG members had been formed to examine the governance review recommendations to establish a joint research group. It was agreed that a joint group would be both beneficial and workable. It was proposed that AAHRG should be extended to include researchers working in the Stonehenge part of the WHS and that the existing AAHRG terms of reference should be retained with a limited number of appropriate amendments. Their recommendations were accepted by AAHRG in July 2013.

Policy 7a – Encourage sustainable archaeological research of the highest quality in the WHS, informed by the WHS Research Framework

ACTIONS

150 Encourage research in line with the WHS Research Framework.

151 Monitor, review and update the WHS Research Framework on a regular basis with a periodic review after ten years.

152 Reinforce guidance on sustainable research provided by the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF). Encourage adherence to the IfA Code of Conduct and MORPHE guidelines within the WHS and its setting.

153 Develop links with national and international WHSs, universities and researchers with similar research interests.

154 Encourage completion and dissemination of unpublished past research.

155 Promote creative PhD partnerships.


183

Role of ASAHRG

12.5.4 The role of ASAHRG is to support the delivery of the WHS Management Plan aims and policies through regular revision of SARF and provision of guidance on archaeological and historical research, its facilitation and dissemination. It reports to the Steering Committees and Partnership Panel on matters relating to archaeology and history to support them in making informed management decisions. The group provides a forum for debate of research topics related to the WHS and the refinement and development of research proposals and as an arena for information exchange. It also exists to encourage best practice including timely reporting and dissemination of research and the identification of opportunities for outreach and education. The terms of reference can be found at Appendix C.

12.6 Archiving of archaeological finds, paper archives and data

Issue 54: The storage of archaeological finds, paper archives and data from the WHS

Archive storage

12.6.1 A crucial factor that could constrain the rate at which research is carried out is the existence of accredited institutions capable of receiving and curating the often extensive archives generated.

12.6.2 Sustainable archaeological research requires that the resulting archaeological archives – both physical and digital – need to be properly curated for the long-term future. Archaeological archives from past excavations in the WHS are held by the Alexander Keiller, Wiltshire and Salisbury and British Museums. The Stonehenge half of the WHS is within the agreed collecting area of the Salisbury Museum while Avebury falls into both the Alexander Keiller and Wiltshire Museum collecting areas. (The Alexander Keiller Museum and Wiltshire Museum Collections Development Policies

are complementary.) Avebury parish is recognised as the collecting area for the Alexander Keiller Museum for archaeological finds; archaeological finds from the WHS other than Avebury parish may be collected by either institution. An agreed policy for reaching agreement regarding deposition, features in the Collections Development Policies of both museums. However, Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums currently have little or no room for further extensive archives. Indeed, there are some archaeological archives which are temporarily held by other organisations – notably Sheffield University which holds the bulk of the Stonehenge Riverside Project archives – for which there is currently no room at the museums which cover the WHS collecting area. At present the Alexander Keiller Museum still has some archive space available. Salisbury Museum is considering refurbishing its storage facilities as part of their broader redevelopment programme.

12.6.3 Both Wiltshire and Salisbury are independent museums. They have limited resources which do not fully cover the costs of storing and curating existing or future archives. Museums as charities need to raise funds from income generated, donations or grants. WHS partners should require research project designs to include arrangements for managing and funding storage of finds and data as a condition of SMC/licence and grants. (Policy 7b/Action 158)

12.6.4 Work is currently being undertaken by Wiltshire Council on exploring the feasibility of setting up a county-wide facility for museum storage and archiving. This will include museums with WHS-related collections. It requires an assessment of what data/archive there is and what future requirements there may be for storage and curation and how it will be funded. A separate review needs to be undertaken into options for the long-term storage of the Alexander Keiller Museum collection.

(Policy 7b/Action 156, 157)

Members of the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group and colleagues on a site visit to the Between the Monuments excavation beside West Kennet Avenue, 2013

© C

olin

She

ll

Possible new monuments found during the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes project

© 2

014

LBI A

rchP

ro, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d


12.6.5 Although moveable objects such as archives cannot be considered attributes of OUV under UNESCO guidelines, they are direct artefactual evidence from the prehistoric peoples of the WHS and as such essential to its understanding. In the longer term to ensure the future security of these archives, consideration could be given to the feasibility of developing a WHS resource centre, storage facility and research centre.

12.7 Improving access to results and data

Issue 55: Access to information including research findings and data sets needs to be improved

Historic Environment Record

12.7.1 One of the key challenges is improving the management of the data we have in a way that allows ease of access to researchers, managers and the wider public. This will require easily accessible data available on the Wiltshire Historic Environment Record (HER). The GIS for the WHS was previously maintained separately for Stonehenge and Avebury, by English Heritage and the Council respectively with a third version held by Wessex Archaeology. There was little or no access for researchers and the wider public or other WHS partners. This should be managed as an integrated geospatial resource with the full range of relevant datasets available to inform revisions of the WHS Management Plan. It needs to be brought together in one place in the HER. The data should be held and maintained in a format that is accessible to all present and future WHS partners. Where any outstanding historic mapping and record inaccuracies still exist in data sets such as the National Monuments Record, these should be updated and corrected as they become apparent. It should be noted that the data held is not only digital but paper records, including important ‘grey’ or unpublished/unindexed reports. (Policy 7b/Action 160, 161)

12.7.2 Innovative information management systems and approaches such as multivariate tracking data will help to provide the most advantageous research and management outcomes. Best practice should encourage exploration of these for effective information management. This will require funding which might be sought in kind from major companies and other sources in the absence of adequate public sector resources.

Data sharing

12.7.3 New data sets are often produced by government

agencies or others who retain the licences. It can be difficult to access these data sets and this can minimise the possible research and management gains or at least delay them. It can also involve additional cost and time to produce reports. An example of this was the production of the WHS Woodland Strategy which required extra work in the modelling of impacts as the necessary Lidar data for Avebury was unavailable from the Environment Agency without a considerable fee. It would be helpful to explore possible arrangements for licences to be shared via a memorandum of understanding for WHS projects. In addition researchers should be required to share data with WHS partners by making this a condition of SMC and/or relevant licences and grants. (Policy 7b/Action 162)

Reporting and review of past data and collections

12.7.4 Another barrier to access is the fact that not all researchers deposit the results with the HER. Independent and unreported research does occur. Research cannot be considered sustainable without accessible records of its findings. Lack of reporting can hamper both future research and effective

Policy 7b – Improve information management and public access to data sets and provide adequate facilities for archives and storage of finds

ACTIONS

156 Deliver the outcomes of the county-wide project aimed at securing long-term storage facilities for the archive, records and collections to ensure those related to the WHS held by Salisbury and Wiltshire Museums are adequately provided for.

157 Explore options for long-term storage of Alexander Keiller Museum collections.

158 Require research project designs to include arrangements for managing and funding storage of finds and data as a condition of Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC)/licence.

159 Carry out a review of past excavations, research and collections. Facilitate future access to all finds and data. Exploit digital opportunities.

160 Identify historic mapping and record inaccuracies on National Monuments Record.

161 Develop WHS GIS within the HER. Make available to all WHS partners.

162 Encourage data sharing between government agencies and all WHS partners including researchers and require as part of SMC/licence.


185

management. Researchers should be encouraged to deposit findings first with the HER. All project design should set out arrangements for reporting and publication which should also be a condition of consents, licences and funding to help address this issue. In addition a review of past excavations, research and collections should be carried out to facilitate access to all past finds and data. Digital opportunities for expanding this access should be exploited and funding sought to facilitate this where necessary.

(Policy 7b/Action 159)

12.7.5 University research assessment exercises are increasingly requiring (presumed digital) free ‘open access’ publication of submitted work. Already exemplary in this regard is the online availability of Historic England’s Research Department Reports of its recent extensive research in the WHS.180 Where complex GIS data is provided by researchers from projects within the WHS it should be possible to provide this for open access. Appropriate technological support will be necessary to make this accessible.

12.8 Increasing public benefit of research

Issue 56: The public benefit of research needs to be enhanced

Monitoring benefits and conditions for public

engagement

12.8.1 Opportunities for dissemination of research, education, public engagement and improved interpretation should be maximised. This should be monitored, recorded and reported to ASAHRG who can assist researchers in highlighting the public benefit of research and reporting to funders and decision makers. Wherever possible when licences and consents are granted they should include conditions for public engagement and dissemination of research. (Policy 7c/Action 163, 168)

Public seminars, fascicules and the WHS website

12.8.2 There are many channels for dissemination and engagement. These include a WHS research conference and biennial public seminar in partnership with the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) and other WHS partners. In addition the idea, originally proposed at AAHRG, of producing WHS fascicules should be reviewed. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website is also an important asset for dissemination. It should be developed to include a research section with information on ASAHRG, and links to research publications and relevant research websites. In time an interactive map could be used to show what information is available for each monument within the landscape. Resources would be required to create and update this. (Policy 7c/Action 164, 165)

Education

12.8.3 An extremely effective method for engagement is through education projects. One example of this that took place in the Avebury half of the WHS was the ‘Avenue to Learning’ Project. This was designed and delivered by researchers and heritage professionals and based on the results of geophysical research on the

West Kennet Avenue. It involved a primary school from Swindon that used surveying techniques and the results of geophysics to identify the position of buried Avenue stones. This delivered public benefit through education and encouraged return visits with parents who had never visited Avebury. Such projects would benefit from building in provision for funding to create materials to allow schools to repeat the exercise independently. This would help ensure the public benefits are sustainable. Team Keiller 2008: the re-erection of a stone at Avebury to celebrate the 70th

anniversary of the Alexander Keiller Museum

© B

rian

Edw

ards

Avenue to Learning schools project using research results and survey techniques to study science and maths at Avebury, 2013

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


Exhibitions and galleries

12.8.4 Where research results can be used to improve interpretation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV this provides tangible and easily accessible benefits to the public. Temporary exhibitions at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre should reflect new research findings and updated and improved displays should be created for museums holding WHS collections in response to research. The possibility of redisplaying the two public galleries of the Alexander Keiller Museum should be explored for implementation during the life of the Management Plan. This is discussed further in Section 10.0 (Interpretation, Learning and Community Engagement) which includes related actions. (Policy 7c/Action 167)

Community research

12.8.5 The opportunity for the local community to assist in projects or undertake their own sustainable research where appropriate is another way to deliver engagement and public benefit offered by the WHS. Guidance produced by the Heritage Lottery Fund in liaison with the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers has produced a best practice guide on archaeology aimed at community groups. The guidance recommends that the first step is talking to the local authority historic environment service. ASAHRG should be encouraging and advising on community projects where they are appropriate. (Policy 7c

Action 166)

Policy 7c – Maximise dissemination, interpretation, education and public engagement related to research

ACTIONS

163 Licences and consents should include conditions for public engagement where appropriate, dissemination of research and sharing of data with the HER, archiving of data and collections.

164 Develop an ASAHRG section on the WHS website linking to research publications and relevant research websites.

165 Establish a biennial public seminar in partnership with Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) or other WHS partners.

166 Provide opportunities for the community to be engaged in research projects where appropriate.

167 Encourage providers to present a programme of special exhibitions and permanent displays to reflect recent research.

168 Monitor and record public benefit of research within the WHS.

12.9 Other areas of research

12.9.1 As mentioned in 12.1.4 above research should be understood in its widest sense. In addition to academic research aimed at increasing our understanding of the attributes of OUV of the WHS and informing its management ASAHRG should also continue to encourage research into other historic periods from the Palaeolithic to more recent periods. It is equally important to undertake research into the other values related to the WHS such as the natural environment. This can achieve positive benefits for the holistic management of the WHS. Targeted research into priority habitat and species, for example, will enable researchers to highlight where synergies exist between ecological and historic environment priorities. Limited resources can thereby be channelled into achieving maximum benefits. This is discussed further in Section 8.0 (Conservation).

12.9.2 The WHS should act as a catalyst for novel and innovative research in all areas including historiography, social history, public engagement and the natural and historic environment. This will help to stimulate outreach and enhance public understanding and engagement with the WHS. Oral history has been a particularly successful methodology in this area. Opportunities exist for disseminating the results of such projects as part of temporary exhibitions at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and in the local museums. Research in all fields will need to adhere to best practice and principles of sustainability.

(Policy 7d/Action 169)

Steve Marshall investigating natural springs at Avebury

© S

teve

Mar

shal

l


187

Policy 7d – Undertake other types of research, such as the assessment of biodiversity, as appropriate

ACTION

169 Encourage novel and innovative research in all areas including historiography, social history, public engagement, the natural and historic environment and history of art.

13.0 MANAGEMENT, LIAISON AND MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

Aim 8 – Provide adequate management systems and

resources for the conservation and monitoring of

the WHS

13.1 Management and liaison within the WHS

Issue 57: The role of stakeholders in implementing the Management Plan

13.1.1 No single agency is responsible for managing the whole WHS, and therefore improvements must be made by multiple organisations and individuals working together. It is important that stakeholders agree the contents of and endorse the final Management Plan. It is also important that stakeholders use their best endeavours to undertake the actions they have agreed to lead on and contribute to.

13.1.2 Communication, information sharing and the development of partnerships are central to cost-effective working practices. It is also essential that key stakeholders commit to supporting the aims of the WHS Management Plan through their own plan-making and actions as well as through participation in the relevant WHS groups.

13.1.3 The implementation of the Management Plan policies and actions requires the support and participation of many organisations and individuals. The Plan itself provides the focus for coordinating this effort, but it requires a significant level of commitment and resources if it is to succeed in protecting and enhancing the WHS for this and future generations. To ensure the best use of these resources, the mechanisms for implementing the actions of the Management Plan should be subject to regular review.

13.1.4 Local communities, especially landowners and residents, are obviously of the highest importance as key stakeholders and stewards of the World Heritage Site. Those who live within the WHS or on its boundary, in particular, have a right to expect their interests are taken into account. Other groups with a strong interest in the WHS include national agencies, local authorities, archaeologists, academics, conservationists, those concerned with its spiritual aspects, and all visitors to the Site. A high level of commitment to the WHS is evidenced by the participation of many groups and individuals in both of the local WHS Steering Committees, the Stonehenge Advisory Forum, ASAHRG and in the level of response to the public consultation when reviewing both Management Plans.

Local community

13.1.5 The question of how the WHS should engage and communicate with local communities is considered in Section 10.0 above. If local ownership of the Plan is to be built and sustained it is important that local communities see it as taking into account their interests alongside the protection and enhancement of the WHS. More information should be provided about the significance of the WHS, the challenges involved in its management and the relevance of the WHS designation to their aspirations and needs. The town and parish councils are well placed to represent communities and provide a mechanism for encouraging stewardship of the WHS and local involvement in its day to day management. Initiatives such as the Joint Strategic Assessments, Neighbourhood Plans and Parish Traffic Plans could have a significant role to play in implementing some of the Plan’s objectives. This is discussed further at 7.3 in Section 7.0.

Charitable organisations

13.1.6 National and local charities, voluntary organisations and interest groups also have an important role to play. One national charity, the National Trust, is a major landowner within the WHS and of fundamental importance to the successful implementation of many of the Plan’s objectives. Many can help undertake practical conservation actions on the ground. They can also provide significant input on local and wider issues of relevance to the WHS, such as the spiritual or astronomical aspects of WHS or its local history. These groups can assist in enhancing the visitor experience through guided tours and person to person interpretation. Volunteers have an important role in assisting museums associated with the WHS both in the conservation and presentation of their


nationally significant collections and with the education programmes they offer.

Government departments

13.1.7 A number of government departments have an important role to play in the WHS, either directly or through their agencies. (These are set out in Appendix E.) These responsibilities can be statutory, involve funding various activities or, as in the case of MoD, derive from owning land in the WHS and its setting. In general, government departments should:

Ensure that the need to protect the WHS and sustain its OUV is recognised in the development and implementation of national policy

Provide support, assistance and funding for relevant management work within the WHS as recommended in the Plan.

National agencies

13.1.8 In general, national agencies should:Ensure that the need to protect the WHS and sustain its OUV is recognised in the development and implementation of national policy

Continue to support the Steering Committees as active members

Contribute specialist services or staff to specific programmes or initiatives as required

Provide support, assistance and funding for relevant management work within the WHS as recommended in the Plan.

Local authority

13.1.9 The local authority, Wiltshire Council, should ensure that the Management Plan is given the highest possible status in its policies. The development plans and development management decisions should reflect the need to protect the WHS and sustain its OUV. The local authority should also seek to:

Continue to participate actively in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Steering Committees and Partnership Panel

Allocate resources to the management of the WHS where possible and appropriate

Incorporate the key objectives and recommendations for action in all relevant departmental work programmes

Ensure the key objectives and recommendations for action are reflected in the Core Strategy, Joint Strategic Assessments and Neighbourhood Plans

Contribute to the maintenance of environmental and other data for monitoring purposes.

13.1.10 The Management Plan should be reviewed every six years and an annual action plan prepared by the WHS Coordination Unit for approval by the local Steering Committees and the Partnership Panel.

(Policy 8a/Action 170, 171)

13.2 Funding and resources

Issue 58: Funding and resources for the implementation of the Management Plan and ongoing support for the WHS Coordination Unit

13.2.1 The need for effective coordination and appropriate funding for the WHS as a whole has been highlighted throughout the Plan. To implement the Plan, it is important that key partners find the resources for programmes of work, projects and core staff; that progress in meeting Plan targets is regularly monitored; and appropriate action taken to ensure targets are met. (Policy 8b/Action 172)

13.2.2 A large proportion of funding is provided indirectly to the WHS by Natural England in supporting farmers to protect the archaeology of the WHS through various

Policy 8a – Implement the Management Plan and liaise with partners to maintain and enhance the present partnership approach

ACTIONS

170 Review and update the Management Plan every six years

171 Produce an annual action plan for the Coordination Unit to be reviewed and signed off by Steering Committees and Partnership Panel.

Joint meeting and site visit of Stonehenge and Avebury Steering Committees 2010

© S

arah

Sim

mon

ds


189

agri-environment schemes. This topic is covered in detail in Section 5.21 but it is relevant in this section to note the importance of the work and activities of individual farmers and landowners in protecting the WHS landscape and the financial contribution it represents.

13.2.3 In common with other World Heritage Sites, funding has been a continuing issue. During the lifetime of this Management Plan it is essential to ensure that partners provide adequate and sustainable funding for the management and coordination of the WHS. This might include exploring the opportunities for volunteer assistance with the administrative tasks related to the management of the WHS. The National Trust contribution of archaeological advice to the Unit should be continued. (Policy 8b/Action 175) The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and its Chair should play a key role in establishing a sustainable funding framework for the WHS Coordination Unit and project funds to implement actions in the Management Plan.

13.2.4 The WHS Partnership Panel should produce an innovative fundraising strategy which might include ideas such as: developing a WHS biodiversity off-setting scheme, exploring the opportunities for Community Infrastructure Levy funding with Wiltshire Council, encouraging a visitor payback scheme for charity events and establishing a WHS fund to encourage gifts and loans to fund projects and programmes included in the Management Plan action plan. The North Wessex Downs LEADER Programme may offer a potential funding stream. Past LEADER programmes contributed to the new Wiltshire Museum galleries. (Policy 8b/Action 173, 174)

13.3 Relationship between Stonehenge and Avebury parts of the WHS

Issue 59: The relationship between the Avebury and Stonehenge parts of the WHS

13.3.1 There has been a great deal of work to coordinate the management of the parts of the WHS. In addition to work on the governance review from 2011 to 2014, the two Stonehenge and Avebury Coordinators have worked increasingly closely together on a number of joint projects.

13.3.2 The implementation of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan and the WHS Coordination Unit will see an increase in projects working across both parts of the WHS. However, both communities feel

their independent identity strongly and joint projects should not be at the expense of local initiatives, particularly those aimed at community engagement.

13.3.3 The distance between the two halves of the WHS is some 40km by road. This does mean that it can be challenging to arrange joint events.

13.4 Monitoring and reviewing the Plan

Issue 60: Monitoring arrangements for the WHS

13.4.1 Management planning is a dynamic process and does not stop with the production of the Management Plan. New information, or changed perceptions of priorities can have impacts on the implementation of the Plan. Changes in knowledge and the practical experience of those responsible for the management of the WHS can also affect this as can the availability of resources. Regular monitoring is essential to provide this information. It is important to collect data on the effectiveness of the Plan as well as on the physical condition of the WHS.

13.4.2 The policies and suggested actions set out in the Management Plan should retain their relevance for five to ten years as progress is made. A formal review of the Management Plan should be undertaken every six years, and it should be revised if necessary to reflect changed circumstances. The preparation and review of annual action plans should be an important part of this process.

13.4.3 The following mechanisms are recommended for a regular review of progress: Progress report by key delivery partners at each

Policy 8b – Seek adequate funding for the coordination of the WHS and the implementation of the Management Plan

ACTIONS

172 Establish long-term funding arrangements for the Coordination Unit and put in place adequate resources.

173 Seek to increase private and philanthropic funding. Undertake feasibility study on establishing a WHS fund to support the delivery of the WHS Management Plan.

174 Maximise project funding to achieve Management Plan actions from all sources.

175 Increase capacity of the Coordination Unit. Consider appropriate volunteer support.


meeting of the local WHS Steering Committees (two to three times a year)Annual progress report, including priorities for the following year, produced in writing by key delivery partners for the local committees and Partnership Panel and incorporated into WHS annual action planProduction by Coordination Unit of an annual report of performance against the monitoring indicators based on data provided by WHS partnersProduction by the Coordination Unit of regular updates highlighting achievements and forthcoming projects, with input from all partnersCoordinators to produce an annual action plan for agreement by the local committees and the Partnership PanelOverall review of progress with the implementation of the Management Plan to be produced by the Coordination Unit every three yearsProduction of the UNESCO periodic report every six years. (Policy 8c/Action 177)

13.4.4 The new governance structure established in 2014 should be monitored and reviewed to ensure that it is fit for purpose and is working as intended. Terms of reference set out periods of review and the WHS Coordination Unit and the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel should ensure that these are completed and any necessary actions taken.

13.5 WHS governance structure

Issue 61: The governance of the WHS

13.5.1 The new governance structure which was established in 2014 should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is fit for purpose and the arrangements are effective. (Policy

8c/Action 178)

13.6 Monitoring indicators

13.6.1 The purpose of monitoring is to assess how the attributes of OUV of the WHS are being maintained over time and to measure whether the objectives of the WHS Management Plan are being achieved. Measuring progress is essential to be able to adapt and improve the management of the site. Identifying key threats early on is necessary to put in place remedial measures before damage occurs. Regular monitoring is necessary to re-assess priorities in view of new issues that arise and progress made. Monitoring indicators need to be firmly linked to the attributes of OUV and the aims and policies identified in the WHS Management Plan.

13.6.2 A set of 19 monitoring indicators for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS was produced jointly by the two Coordinators, with input from a number of partners, and endorsed by both the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Committees in 2003. These can be found in the Avebury 2005 and Stonehenge 2009 Management Plans. Their aim is to measure both progress in and threats to the protection, interpretation and management of the site. Although most indicators are common to Avebury and Stonehenge, there are some minor differences reflecting the particular circumstances of each part of the Site. (Policy 8c/Action 176)

13.6.3 However, the application of these monitoring indicators has not been consistent in either Stonehenge or Avebury. A review of the monitoring indicators should be undertaken in line with the attributes of OUV to simplify and streamline their use to enable WHS partners to report on them more easily. A tool kit for developing monitoring indicators was developed by UK WHSs in association with ICOMOS UK in 2006.181 This document together with the UNESCO Paper Monitoring World Heritage,182 should form the basis of a review of monitoring indicators for the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

13.6.4 Monitoring is something that should be an integral part of management. Performance against the indicators should be reviewed annually in order to inform annual action plans and keep track of the conditions of the WHS. The Coordination Unit should use this information as the basis for the Periodic Report produced every six years to inform UNESCO of challenges affecting the WHS. Both annual and periodic reports should be circulated to all interested parties.

Policy 8c – Ensure regular monitoring of the WHS

ACTIONS

176 Revise the WHS monitoring indicators to ensure they encompass all relevant impacts on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Ensure the WHS partners put them in place

177 Produce the UNESCO periodic report every six years

178 Regular monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the WHS governance arrangements including the WHS Coordination Unit.

Arable farming at Avebury below the Ridgeway© K930754 Historic England

Part Three

Aims and policies

Volunteer assisting in the construction of the Neolithic Houses at Stonehenge James O Davies © DPI63594 Historic England

192 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part 3 Aims and policies

Part Three draws together in one place the aims and policies referred to in the discussion of issues and opportunities in Part Two.

The aims set out the eight broad longer term goals that the WHS delivery partners will work towards to achieve

the Vision while the policies set out the course of action and appropriate approach.

Part Four of the Plan sets out the actions agreed by partners to achieve these aims and implement the policies.

14.1 Aims and policies

Aim 1: The Management Plan will be endorsed

by those bodies and individuals responsible for its

implementation as the framework for long-term

detailed decision-making on the protection and

enhancement of the WHS and the maintenance

of its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Its aims

and policies should be incorporated in relevant

planning guidance and policies.

Policy 1a – Government departments, agencies and other statutory bodies responsible for making and implementing national policies and for undertaking activities that may impact on the WHS and its environs should recognise the importance of the WHS and its need for special treatment and a unified approach to sustain its OUV

Policy 1b – Set within the framework provided by the Management Plan, relevant stakeholders should implement existing policy and guidance and where necessary develop policies and written guidance at a national and local level for the improved management and conservation of the WHS. These policies should ensure the maintenance of its OUV by protecting the physical fabric, character, appearance, setting and views into and out of the WHS. Relevant Management Plan policies should be incorporated within the Core Strategy and other relevant development plan documents within the Local Plan and additional WHS planning guidance produced

Policy 1c – Ensure any other plans or strategies produced locally such as Neighbourhood Plans, and the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan contain policies that support the protection of the WHS and its setting and the maintenance of its OUV

Policy 1d – Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its setting and its attributes of OUV should not be permitted

Policy 1e – Minimise light pollution to avoid adverse impacts on the WHS, its setting and its attributes of OUV

Policy 1f – Any additional tourist facilities and attractions must contribute to the understanding and enjoyment of the WHS and its attributes of OUV as well as ensuring visitor dispersal and the positive management of visitor pressures

Aim 2: The WHS boundary should ensure the

integrity of the WHS is maintained and enhanced

by including significant archaeological features

and interrelationships that reflect the attributes

of

the OUV.

Policy 2a – Propose to UNESCO a minor modification of the boundary at Stonehenge to enhance the integrity of the WHS

Policy 2b – Put in place appropriate guidance to ensure that development within the setting of the WHS protects and enhances the Site and its attributes of OUV

Part Three: Aims and policies

14.0 INTRODUCTION TO AIMS AND POLICIES

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Three: Aims and policies

193

Aim 3: Sustain the OUV of the WHS through the

conservation and enhancement of the Site and its

attributes of OUV.

Policy 3a – Manage the WHS to protect the physical remains which contribute to its attributes of OUV and improve their condition

Policy 3b – Review regularly the condition and vulnerability of all archaeological sites and monuments throughout the WHS to guide management actions and future priorities

Policy 3c – Maintain and enhance the setting of monuments and sites in the landscape and their interrelationships and astronomical alignments with particular attention given to achieving an appropriate landscape setting for the monuments and the WHS itself

Policy 3d – Improve the WHS landscape by the removal, redesign or screening of existing intrusive structures such as power lines, fences and unsightly buildings where opportunities arise

Policy 3e – Conserve and/or make more visible buried, degraded or obscured archaeological features within the WHS without detracting from their intrinsic form and character

Policy 3f – Encourage land management activities and measures to maximise the protection of archaeological monuments and sites as well as their settings, and the setting of the WHS itself

Policy 3g – Maintain, enhance and extend existing areas of permanent grassland where appropriate

Policy 3h – Explore and develop synergies between the historic and natural environment to benefit the WHS and the maintenance of its OUV. Maintain and enhance the overall nature conservation value of the WHS, in particular: maintain, enhance and extend the existing areas of floristically rich chalk downland turf; enhance the biodiversity of permanent grassland to extend the area of species-rich grassland and provide habitat for birds, invertebrates, bats and other wildlife. Seek opportunities for the expansion of chalk grassland where consistent with protecting the WHS to sustain its OUV and relevant biodiversity targets. Extend and seek new links with relevant conservation bodies, programmes and initiatives

Policy 3i – Sustain and enhance the attributes of OUV through woodland management while taking into account the WHS’s ecological and landscape values

Policy 3j – Produce risk management strategies; keep under review and implement as necessary

Aim 4: Optimise physical and intellectual access

to the WHS for a range of visitors and realise its

social and economic benefits while at the same

time protecting the WHS and its attributes of

OUV.

Policy 4a – Management of visitors to the WHS should be exemplary and follow relevant national and international guidance on sustainable tourism

Policy 4b – Spread the economic benefits from tourism related to the WHS throughout the wider community

Policy 4c – Encourage access and circulation to key archaeological sites within the WHS landscape. Maintain appropriate arrangements for managed open access on foot (taking into account archaeological, ecological and community sensitivities) to increase public awareness and enjoyment

Policy 4d – Manage special access at Stonehenge for significant occasions including solstices, and for stone circle access outside opening hours for small groups and all open access at Avebury to avoid harm to the WHS and its attributes of OUV

Aim 5: Improve the interpretation of the WHS

to increase understanding and enjoyment of

its special characteristics and maximise its

educational potential. Engage the local community

in the stewardship and management of the WHS.

Policy 5a – Improve the interpretation both on and off site to enhance enjoyment and appreciation of the WHS

Policy 5b – Develop learning opportunities offered by the WHS both on and off site

Policy 5c – Promote community involvement in the WHS to increase a sense of ownership

Policy 5d – Artists and the creative sector will offer new and inspiring ways for communities and a wider range of visitors to engage with and learn about the OUV of the WHS and the wide range of artistic responses to it both past and present

Policy 5e – Present a unified Stonehenge and Avebury WHS identity and message

Policy 5f – Explore and deliver opportunities to meet the wider objectives of UNESCO and the UK Government

194 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Three: Aims and policies

Aim 6: Reduce significantly the negative impacts of

roads and traffic on the WHS and its attributes of

OUV and increase sustainable access to the WHS.

Policy 6a – Identify and implement measures to reduce the negative impacts of roads, traffic and parking on the WHS and to improve road safety and the ease and confidence with which residents and visitors can explore the WHS

Policy 6b – Manage vehicular access to byways within the World Heritage Site to avoid damage to archaeology, improve safety and encourage exploration of the landscape on foot whilst maintaining access for emergency, operational and farm vehicles and landowners

Policy 6c – Take measures through sustainable transport planning to encourage access to the WHS other than by car

Aim 7 – Encourage and promote sustainable

research to improve understanding of the

archaeological, historic and environmental

value of the WHS necessary for its appropriate

management. Maximise the public benefit of this

research.

Policy 7a – Encourage sustainable archaeological research of the highest quality in the WHS, informed by the WHS Research Framework

Policy 7b – Improve information management and public access to data sets and provide adequate facilities for archives and storage of finds

Policy 7c – Maximise dissemination, interpretation, education and public engagement related to research

Policy 7d – Undertake other types of research, such as the assessment of biodiversity, as appropriate

Aim 8 – Provide adequate management systems

and resources for the conservation and monitoring

of the WHS.

Policy 8a – Implement the Management Plan and liaise with partners to maintain and enhance the present partnership approach

Policy 8b – Seek adequate funding for the coordination of the WHS and the implementation of the Management Plan

Policy 8c – Ensure regular monitoring of the WHS

Stonehenge

© K

9403

15 H

isto

ric

Engl

and

Part Four

Implementing the Plan

Avebury Stone Circle © K020791 Historic England

196 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Four: Implementing the Plan

Part Four: Implementing the Plan

15.0 PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

15.01 This section outlines the approach to the implementation of the Management Plan which relies on committed partnership working. It sets out a series of management principles to guide all partners involved in the delivery of the Plan. The section outlines the role and responsibilities of the WHS Steering Committees, Partnership Panel and Coordination Unit in the implementation of the Plan.

15.02 The main body of this section comprises a table setting out all agreed actions to be delivered by WHS partners under the relevant aims and policies. The table includes other information relevant to delivery including lead and key partners, and priorities and timescales for delivery. An annual action plan will be drawn up and agreed each year including the relevant actions from this table for implementation by WHS partners.

15.1 Partnership working

15.1.1 The Management Plan includes the wide range of actions that need to be undertaken to deliver the aims and policies discussed in Part Two sections 7.0–13.0 and set out in Part Three above. The Management Plan is a dynamic document and these actions may be adapted in response to changes in the management context over the lifetime of the Plan. Additional actions may also need to be added.

15.1.2 It is important to note that the delivery of the Plan is not the responsibility of one single organisation but a joint responsibility and commitment shared by all the partners involved in the management of the WHS from individual landowners to national agencies. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and the Stonehenge and Avebury Steering Committees will play an essential role in encouraging, guiding, overseeing and monitoring progress as well as reviewing and updating the Management Plan.

15.1.3 The range and numbers of partners involved in the management of the WHS means that coordinated partnership working is essential for achieving successful outcomes for the WHS and the communities living and working in and around it. There has been an excellent track record of organisations and community groups working well together in both parts of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS and it is anticipated that this will continue.

15.2 Management principles

15.2.1 The following management principles set out the approach to managing the WHS that all partners should consider in decisions affecting the WHS. They have been adapted from principles originally developed by Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site for inclusion in their Management Plan. These management principles reflect the obligations of the World Heritage Convention and set out the partnership approach and in particular the importance of those living and working within the WHS in managing and caring for it. This set of principles will help to guide the successful management of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS which depends on achieving the appropriate balance between the long-term protection and enhancement of the Site and its attributes of OUV and the aspirations and needs of the local community.

Principle 1: The World Heritage Site Management Plan will address issues directly related to or arising from World

Heritage Site status, in the context of the Site and its setting

Principle 2: Actions undertaken as part of the management of the Site will respect our obligations under

the World Heritage Convention, particularly to ensure that the historic environment is protected, conserved and presented, and given a function in the life of the community

Principle 3: Actions undertaken as part of the management of the Site will consider impact on the

attributes of OUV and integrity of the Site at all times

Principle 4: World Heritage Site management will be delivered through a partnership approach and wherever possible through established existing initiatives and mechanisms

Principle 5: Management of the World Heritage Site will be locally driven where possible, in a national and international context, and aim to achieve effective community involvement where relevant

Principle 6: The Management Plan will support sustainable development; seeking to integrate conservation with responsible use within acceptable limits, to allow economic development and improved quality of life where is does not have a negative impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

Principle 7: World Heritage Site Management will endeavour to respond to the needs and the aspirations

of the community where there is a relevance to the World Heritage Convention and the Vision, aims and policies of the Plan

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Part Four: Implementing the Plan

197

15.3 Annual action plan

15.3.1 Each year an action plan will be developed which will outline the actions to be delivered over the coming year by the relevant partners. The actions will be taken from those in the Aims, Policies and Actions table below. Many of these will be delivered by partners irrespective of the WHS status as part of their normal management programme; others are in direct response to the obligations and aspirations related to WHS status that have been agreed by partners during the development of the Management Plan. The annual plan will need to be agreed by delivery partners, and the two local Steering Committees. The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel will be asked to review the action plan and help identify resources for delivery.

15.4 WHS governance role in implementation

a) Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership

Panel

The Partnership Panel facilitates the role of the Steering Committees in reviewing and updating the WHS Management Plan. It is responsible for reviewing the annual action plan priorities and assisting in the identification of resources for delivery and gathering monitoring data to report externally. Members will champion the WHS within their own organisations to ensure the necessary commitment and resources for delivery are made available.

b) Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Steering

Committees

The Committees are responsible for the review, update and decisions on the content of the WHS Management Plan. Their role is to help formulate and agree the annual action plan and assist in identifying funding for its delivery through existing resources and seeking grants. It should report funding requirements to the WHS Partnership Panel as appropriate. Steering Committee members update each other on progress against the annual action plan and provide relevant monitoring data. Where appropriate the Committees delegate responsibility to task and finish groups to achieve relevant actions. Overall the Committees foster positive and effective partnership working to ensure best practice and efficient and cost effective implementation of the Management Plan.

c) Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Coordination

Unit

The WHS Coordination Unit plays a pivotal role in facilitating, coordinating and enabling implementation of the WHS Management Plan. It works to advocate for the fulfilment of the overarching aims of the Management Plan through the delivery of identified actions. It promotes and builds strong working relationships between partners to facilitate this delivery. This is achieved in part through the organisation of meetings of the local committees and Partnership Panel and other groups as well as its work in monitoring progress on delivery and encouraging reporting by partners.

The WHS Coordination Unit’s role is to advise, support, facilitate, coordinate and where relevant deliver projects related to the implementation of the Management Plan. It will play some part to a lesser or greater degree in all the actions outlined in the Aims, Policies and Actions table and the annual action plan that derives from it. In addition the Coordinators assist in seeking funding for the delivery of relevant projects.

The Coordination Unit benefits from colleagues within partner organisations including English Heritage, Wiltshire Council, National Trust and Natural England who assist with their advice, support and time.

d) WHS Liaison Group

A WHS Liaison Group including representatives of English Heritage, National Trust and Wiltshire Council meets regularly with the WHS Coordination Unit to review progress on the implementation of the actions. These liaison meetings ensure efficient, coordinated delivery of actions and the pooling of expertise to achieve the aims of the WHS Management Plan.

e) The Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological

and Historical Research Group

This group furthers the aims of the Stonehenge and Avebury Management Plan through regular revision of the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF). It reports to the Steering Committees and Partnership Panel on matters relating to archaeology and history to support them in making informed management decisions.

f ) Task and finish groups

Task and finish groups will be set up to assist in implementation as required. These are small working groups focused on the various projects to deliver the actions set out in the table below. Task and finish groups should have clear terms of reference agreed by one or both Steering Committees as appropriate.


g) External stakeholders and volunteers

Organisations and individuals that are not part of the formal groups play an important role in the protection and conservation of the WHS. Volunteers working for partner organisation such as the National Trust and English Heritage and in some cases directly with the WHS Coordination Unit are an extremely valuable asset in the delivery of the Management Plan.

For further detail on the roles and responsibilities of the organisations and groups involved in the management of the WHS see Section 5.0 (Current Management Context).

15.5 Introduction to Aims, Policies and Actions table

15.5.1 The table below contains the actions which emerged during the development of the first joint Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan. It includes some actions carried over from the previous Stonehenge and Avebury Plans and new actions agreed during discussions at stakeholder workshops, consultation sessions and professional focus groups. It has been informed by international, national and local policy as well as best practice guidance and examples from other WHSs.

15.5.2 The actions have been shaped and refined through discussions with individual partners and the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan Project Board. They have been signed off by the Steering Committees and reviewed by the WHS Partnership Panel. It is hoped that this is a realistic programme of actions that can be achieved within the timescales indicated. Some of these actions are by their nature ongoing or long-term but have been included to encourage their continued implementation or in the case of more long-term actions, to help set a direction for management of the WHS. Delivery will depend on the availability of resources and it is therefore subject to review on an annual basis during the lifetime of this Management Plan.

Layout

15.5.3 The initial headings – Protect, Conserve, Present and Transmit – reflect the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention owing to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. The relevant element of the Vision for the WHS is included under each obligation. The related aims and policies appear under the relevant thematic headings. Finally the actions related to these

policies are set out with the proposed lead and key partners, priority/timescales, related policies/actions, funding sources and success measures in the adjacent columns.

15.5.4 The aims set out the eight broad longer term goals that will work towards achieving the Vision while the policies set out the course or principles of action and appropriate approach. The aims, and to a large extent the policies, will have a longer term relevance for achieving the Vision. Not all actions can be expected to be achieved within the Plan period. The actions are specific areas of work within the control of the partners. Some aspirational, longer term actions are included within the table.

15.5.5 Lead partners have been identified in order to encourage responsibility for initiating and reporting on each action. From experience it has been found that where no lead partner is identified, this can lead to difficulty in moving forward with the initiation of an action.

15.5.6 Key partners are those who should be working with the lead partner to deliver the action. They, along with the lead partner, share responsibility for realising the outcomes/success measures. Responsibility and roles can be discussed and agreed during the project planning stage of delivery. Partners are listed in the Acronyms below. It is anticipated that following a change in name or structure of any organisation during the lifetime of the Plan, their role will be taken on by the relevant successor organisation.

15.5.7 The level of priority is indicated in the column on timescales. This ranges from 1 to 3 with 1 being the highest priority for the protection and presentation of the WHS and its attributes of OUV. This has been added in addition to the timescale as in some cases high priority actions may not be possible to complete in short timescales due the nature of the project or the need to secure funding. This should not detract from the need to prioritise these actions. The Management Plan is a dynamic document and these priorities may need to be adapted over the lifetime of the Plan in response to changes in the management context. At the very least they will be reviewed annually when action plans for the year are agreed by the Steering Committees.

15.5.8 Timescales should be realistic but some actions will need to be delivered earlier in the Plan period when later actions depend on their completion. Where actions are unlikely to be delivered during the lifetime


199

of the Plan this is indicated as long term in the timescale column. The date given is the year that it is anticipated that the work will be completed. It may take several years to do so. Each year the feasibility of delivering actions will be reviewed and an annual action plan drawn up based on this.

15.5.9 The addition of a related policies and actions column provides a cross reference between the different sections of the Plan. This column should be used to assist in ensuring projects and actions achieve the full range of benefits across all relevant aims and actions, avoid inadvertent harm and avoid duplication of effort. Although most interrelationships will be considered as part of their normal practice partners should check the related policies and actions column prior to delivery of actions.

15.5.10 Funding is categorised as ‘existing’ or ‘grant’ as a guide to possible requirements and project planning. No individual funding streams have been identified. This generic approach is designed to assist in future proofing the document if certain specific organisations or streams of funding alter their focus or disappear. Existing funding refers to available resources provided by organisations at the time of publication and may include contributions in kind. The availability of these resources may vary over the lifetime of the Plan. Detailed funding strategies will need to be prepared during the project planning stage of delivery.

AAHRG Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group

AE Agri-environmentAHEV Area of High Ecological ValueAILF Avebury Interpretation and Learning

FrameworkAKM Alexander Keiller MuseumAONB Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyAPC Avebury Parish CouncilASAHRG Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and

Historical Research Group ASSF Avebury Sacred Sites ForumBAP Biodiversity Action PlanBOATs Byways Open to All TrafficCCAONB Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural

BeautyCIL Community Infrastructure LevyCLA Country Land and Business Association COSMIC Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in

CultivationCPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England CSS Countryside Stewardship SchemeCWS County Wildlife SiteDCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport Defra Department for the Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport DIO Defence Infrastructure OrganisationDPD Development Plan DocumentEA Environment AgencyEH English HeritageEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentFC Forestry Commission GIS Geographical Information SystemGPDO General Permitted Development OrderGPS Global Positioning SystemHA Highways AgencyHARPO Heritage at Risk Protection OfficerHE Historic EnglandHEFA Historic Environment Field AdviserHER Historic Environment RecordHIA Heritage Impact AssessmentHLC Historic Landscape CharacterisationHLF Heritage Lottery FundHLS Higher Level Stewardship HM Treasury Her Majesty’s Treasury IAM Inspector of Ancient MonumentsICCROM International Centre for the Study of the

Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property

15.6 Acronyms


ICOMOS UK UK National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites

IfA Institute for ArchaeologistsIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureJNCC Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeJSNA Joint Strategic Needs AssessmentLAC Limits of Acceptable ChangeLAWHF Local Authority World Heritage Forum LBC Listed Building ConsentLCA Landscape Character AssessmentLDS Local Development SchemeLEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de

l’Économie RuraleLEP Local Economic PartnershipLMA Local Management AgreementLNP Local Nature PartnershipLO Private landowners LTP Local Transport PlanMoD Ministry of Defence MORPHE Management of Projects in the Historic

EnvironmentNCA National Character AssessmentNE Natural England NEWP Natural Environment White PaperNFU National Farmers UnionNIA Nature Improvement AreaNNR Nature Nature ReserveNPPF National Planning Policy FrameworkNT National Trust NWDAONB North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding

Natural BeautyOASIS Online Access to the Index of archaeological

investigationSOUV Outstanding Universal ValueP/TC Parish/Town Councils PAS Portable Antiquities SchemePC Parish CouncilPD Permitted Development PP Partnership PanelPPG Planning Practice GuidanceRoW Right of Way RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RT (Stonehenge) Round TableSAC Special Area of ConservationSALOG Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and

Outreach GroupSALONG Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and

Outreach Network GroupSARF Stonehenge and Avebury Research FrameworkSC(s) Steering Committee(s)SEIP Stonehenge Environmental Improvements

ProjectSILPS Stonehenge Interpretation, Learning and

Participation Strategy

SLA Special Landscape AreaSLOCG Stonehenge Learning and Outreach

Coordination GroupSM Salisbury Museum SMC Scheduled Monument ConsentSO Strategic ObjectivesSPA Special Protection AreaSPACES Strumble and Preseli Ancient Communities and

Environment StudySPD Supplementary Planning DocumentSPTA Salisbury Plain Training AreaSRP Stonehenge Riverside ProjectSSE Scottish and Southern ElectricitySSF (Avebury) Sacred Sites ForumSSSI Site of Special Scientific InterestSustrans Sustainable Transport charityTC Town CouncilTRO Traffic Regulation OrderTVM Transport and Visitor ManagementTW TransWilts RailwayUKNC UK National Commission for UNESCO UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and

Cultural OrganisationVW VisitWiltshire WA Wiltshire ArchaeologyWANHS Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History

SocietyWBRC Wiltshire Biological Records CentreWHSCU World Heritage Site Coordination UnitWHSPP World Heritage Site Partnership Panel WHSSC World Heritage Site Committee WH:UK World Heritage UKWM Wiltshire MuseumWP Wiltshire PoliceWSRC Wiltshire and Swindon Record CentreWWT Wiltshire Wildlife Trust


201

Aim

s, P

olicie

s an

d A

cti

on

s

PR

OT

EC

T

Vis

ion

: The

Sto

nehe

nge

and

Ave

bury

Wor

ld H

erita

ge S

ite is

uni

vers

ally

impo

rtan

t for

its

uniq

ue a

nd d

ense

con

cent

ratio

n of

out

stan

ding

pre

hist

oric

mon

umen

ts

and

sites

whi

ch to

geth

er fo

rm a

land

scap

e w

ithou

t par

alle

l. W

e w

ill w

ork

toge

ther

to c

are

for

and

safe

guar

d th

is sp

ecia

l are

a an

d pr

ovid

e a

tran

quil,

rur

al

and

ecol

ogic

ally

div

erse

set

ting

for

it an

d its

arc

haeo

logy

Sta

tuto

ry a

nd

Po

licy F

ram

ew

ork

Aim

1:T

he

Man

age

me

nt

Pla

n w

ill b

e e

nd

ors

ed

by t

ho

se b

od

ies

an

d in

div

idu

als

re

spo

nsi

ble

fo

r it

s im

ple

me

nta

tio

n a

s th

e f

ram

ew

ork

fo

r lo

ng-

term

de

tailed

decis

ion

-mak

ing o

n t

he

pro

tecti

on

an

d e

nh

an

ce

me

nt

of

the

WH

S a

nd

th

e m

ain

ten

an

ce

of

its

Ou

tsta

nd

ing U

niv

ers

al V

alu

e

(OU

V).

Its

aim

s an

d p

olicie

s sh

ou

ld b

e in

co

rpo

rate

d in

re

levan

t p

lan

nin

g g

uid

an

ce

an

d p

olicie

s

Polic

y 1a

– G

over

nmen

t dep

artm

ents

, age

ncie

s an

d ot

her s

tatu

tory

bod

ies

resp

onsib

le fo

r mak

ing

and

impl

emen

ting

natio

nal p

olici

es a

nd fo

r und

erta

king

act

iviti

es th

at m

ay

impa

ct o

n th

e W

HS

and

its e

nviro

ns s

houl

d re

cogn

ise th

e im

port

ance

of

the

WH

S an

d its

nee

d fo

r spe

cial

trea

tmen

t and

a u

nifie

d ap

proa

ch to

sus

tain

its

OU

V

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

1 2

Subm

it W

HS

Man

agem

ent P

lan

to U

NES

CO

All

orga

nisa

tions

rep

rese

nted

on

the

Wor

ld

Her

itage

Site

Par

tner

ship

Pan

el (W

HSP

P) a

nd

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ees

(SC

) to

endo

rse/

adop

t the

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n

DC

MS

WH

SPP/

SC

WH

SPP,

HE

EH, H

E, N

T,

NE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, Pa

rish/

Tow

n C

ounc

ils,

Are

a Bo

ards

, RS

PB, A

ON

B,

MoD

, FC

1/ 2015

1/ 2015

–

–

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

UN

ESC

O r

ecei

ve a

nd

appr

ove

Plan

Form

ally

ado

pted

by

100%

of

orga

nisa

tions

re

pres

ente

d on

the

WH

SPP

and

SC

15.7 Aims, Policies and Actions table


3 4

Adv

ocat

e an

d co

ntrib

ute

to th

e fo

rmul

atio

n of

ap

prop

riate

nat

iona

l pol

icie

s. W

here

nec

essa

ry a

gree

lo

cal e

xcep

tions

from

nat

iona

l pol

icie

s to

pro

tect

th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V in

line

with

the

oblig

atio

ns o

f th

e W

orld

Her

itage

Con

vent

ion

Iden

tify

and

prod

uce

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

form

of

pla

nnin

g gu

idan

ce. E

stab

lish

a w

orki

ng g

roup

to

con

sider

a S

uppl

emen

tary

Pla

nnin

g D

ocum

ent

(SPD

) tha

t exp

lain

s th

e sig

nific

ance

of

the

WH

S an

d en

sure

s th

at d

evel

opm

ent m

anag

emen

t of

the

site,

its

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV,

and

its

sett

ing

refle

ct

its d

esig

natio

n as

set

out

in th

e St

atem

ent o

f O

utst

andi

ng U

nive

rsal

Val

ue

WH

SPP

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

HE,

WH

SCU

, N

WD

AO

NB

2/ Ong

oing

or

whe

n po

licie

s ch

ange

d or

re

new

ed

1/ 2017

3g

/56

1d

/8

1e

/11

2a

/13

2b

/15

6a

/132

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Nat

iona

l pol

icie

s th

at

serv

e to

pro

tect

or

enha

nce

the

WH

S

App

ropr

iate

ex

cept

ions

in p

lace

and

im

plem

ente

d lo

cally

App

ropr

iate

gui

danc

e in

pla

ce a

nd u

sed

to

dete

rmin

e pl

anni

ng

appl

icat

ions

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Polic

y 1b

– S

et w

ithin

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed b

y th

e M

anag

emen

t Pla

n, re

leva

nt s

take

hold

ers

shou

ld im

plem

ent e

xist

ing

polic

y an

d gu

idan

ce a

nd w

here

nec

essa

ry d

evel

op p

olic

ies

and

writ

ten

guid

ance

at a

nat

iona

l and

loca

l lev

el fo

r th

e im

prov

ed m

anag

emen

t and

con

serv

atio

n of

the

WH

S. T

hese

pol

icie

s sh

ould

ens

ure

the

mai

nten

ance

of i

ts O

UV

by p

rote

ctin

g th

e ph

ysica

l fab

ric, c

hara

cter

, app

eara

nce,

set

ting

and

view

s in

to a

nd o

ut o

f the

WH

S. R

elev

ant M

anag

emen

t Pla

n po

licie

s sh

ould

be

inco

rpor

ated

with

in t

he C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

oth

er

rele

vant

dev

elop

men

t pla

n do

cum

ents

with

in t

he L

ocal

Pla

n an

d ad

ditio

nal W

HS

plan

ning

gui

danc

e pr

oduc

ed


203

Acti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

5 6 7

All

WH

S pa

rtne

rs a

nd o

ther

rel

evan

t org

anisa

tions

to

ens

ure

effec

tive

impl

emen

tatio

n of

exi

stin

g po

licie

s an

d re

view

the

need

to p

rodu

ce a

dditi

onal

ag

reed

pol

icie

s/gu

idan

ce/p

lans

to a

ssist

in a

chie

ving

W

HS

Man

agem

ent P

lan

aim

s, p

olic

ies

and

actio

ns

Revi

ew s

aved

WH

S po

licie

s fr

om K

enne

t Loc

al P

lan

and

ensu

re th

at r

elev

ant p

olic

ies

are

inco

rpor

ated

in

the

Wilt

shire

Cor

e St

rate

gy

Liai

se w

ith W

iltsh

ire C

ounc

il an

d ot

her

part

ner

orga

nisa

tions

dev

elop

ing

plan

s an

d po

licie

s to

en

sure

the

WH

S an

d its

att

ribut

es o

f O

UV

and

th

eir

signi

fican

ce a

re r

ecog

nise

d an

d ap

prop

riate

ly

safe

guar

ded.

Res

pond

to r

elev

ant p

ublic

co

nsul

tatio

ns

WH

SPP

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

EH, H

E, N

T, N

E,

Wilt

shire

NE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, Pa

rish/

To

wn

Cou

ncils

, A

rea

Boar

ds,

RSPB

, N

WD

AO

NB,

M

oD, F

C,

Ridg

eway

N

atio

nal T

rail

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

NW

DA

ON

B,

NE,

EH

2/ 2016

1/ 2016

1/ Liai

se

bian

nual

lyC

omm

ent

as r

equi

red

1b

/6

1c/7

1b

/5

1c/7

1b

/5

1b

/6

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Org

anisa

tions

gu

idan

ce/p

lans

agr

ees

with

and

sup

port

s M

anag

emen

t Pla

n ai

ms

and

polic

ies

Rele

vant

sav

ed

polic

ies

inco

rpor

ated

in

Wilt

shire

Cor

e St

rate

gy

Refe

renc

e to

WH

S ai

ms/

polic

ies

in

rele

vant

sta

tuto

ry

plan

s

Polic

y 1c

– E

nsur

e an

y ot

her

plan

s or

str

ateg

ies

prod

uced

loca

lly s

uch

as N

eigh

bour

hood

Pla

ns, a

nd t

he N

orth

Wes

sex

Dow

ns A

ON

B M

anag

emen

t Pla

n co

ntai

n po

licie

s th

at s

uppo

rt t

he p

rote

ctio

n of

the

WH

S an

d its

set

ting

and

the

mai

nten

ance

of i

ts O

UV


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

8Re

view

the

exist

ing

Art

icle

4 D

irect

ions

and

upd

ate

as r

equi

red

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

ilH

E,

NW

DA

ON

B1/ 20

161b

/4Ex

istin

gPo

tent

ially

da

mag

ing

Perm

itted

D

evel

opm

ent (

PD)

right

s re

mov

ed

Polic

y 1d

– D

evel

opm

ent w

hich

wou

ld im

pact

adv

erse

ly o

n th

e W

HS,

its

sett

ing

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV

shou

ld n

ot b

e pe

rmitt

ed

9 10 11

Regu

lar

liaiso

n, in

form

atio

n ex

chan

ge a

nd tr

aini

ng fo

r pl

anni

ng o

ffice

rs a

nd c

ounc

illor

s. E

very

two

year

s or

w

hen

new

pol

icie

s or

gui

danc

e co

me

into

effe

ct

Rai

se a

nd m

aint

ain

awar

enes

s of

the

WH

S th

roug

h lia

ison

with

land

owne

rs a

nd h

ouse

hold

ers.

Dev

elop

gui

delin

es b

uild

ing

on e

xist

ing

evid

ence

and

gu

idan

ce to

avo

id li

ght p

ollu

tion

and

nega

tive

impa

cts

on th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V a

s pa

rt o

f th

e w

ider

WH

S pl

anni

ng g

uida

nce/

SPD

. U

se g

uida

nce

to a

dvise

on

deve

lopm

ents

incl

udin

g hi

ghw

ays

sche

mes

to e

nsur

e ne

w in

trus

ion

is av

oide

d an

d ex

istin

g lig

ht p

ollu

tion

min

imise

d.(N

B im

pact

on

biod

iver

sity

inte

rest

s sh

ould

also

be

cons

ider

ed)

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

2/ Bian

nual

/ re

spon

se to

ne

w p

olic

y,

guid

ance

, pl

an

2/ 2018

Ong

oing

1/ 2017

5c/1

14 &

118

1b

/ 4

Exist

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g/Ex

istin

g

Exist

ing

App

ropr

iate

dec

ision

s m

ade

on p

lann

ing

appl

icat

ions

with

in th

e W

HS

and

its s

ettin

g in

rel

atio

n to

rel

evan

t po

licie

s an

d gu

idan

ce

Prod

uctio

n of

co

mm

unity

focu

sed

plan

ning

info

rmat

ion

Cle

ar g

uide

lines

av

aila

ble

on a

void

ing

light

pol

lutio

n.

Exist

ing

light

pol

lutio

n m

inim

ised

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

NW

DA

ON

B,N

E, E

H

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

NW

DA

ON

B,

MoD

, HA

, H

E, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

W

HSP

P,

NW

DA

ON

B

Polic

y 1e

– M

inim

ise li

ght p

ollu

tion

to a

void

adv

erse

impa

cts

on t

he W

HS,

its

sett

ing

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV


205

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

12 13 14

Revi

ew o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r a

visit

or fa

cilit

y

outs

ide

the

WH

S.

Agr

ee th

e ex

tent

of

the

mod

ifica

tion

with

WH

S pa

rtne

rs fo

llow

ing

the

com

plet

ion

of th

e W

HS

Sett

ing

Stud

y an

d su

bmit

to U

NES

CO

Map

an

indi

cativ

e se

ttin

g ar

ea fo

r pl

anni

ng

man

agem

ent p

urpo

ses

as a

n in

terim

mea

sure

prio

r to

the

com

plet

ion

of th

e Se

ttin

g St

udy

and

rela

ted

guid

ance

EH WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

, W

HSP

P

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

NT,

MoD

HE,

WH

SCU

1b

/ 4

2b

/15

2b

/15

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Fina

l dec

ision

on

need

fo

r lo

ng-t

erm

sol

utio

n ag

reed

Boun

dary

incl

udes

all

area

s ne

cess

ary

to

mai

ntai

n an

d en

hanc

e in

tegr

ity

App

ropr

iate

con

sulte

es

cont

acte

d w

here

WH

S se

ttin

g m

ay b

e aff

ecte

d

3/ Long

-ter

m

1/ 2017

1/20

15

Polic

y 1f

– A

ny a

dditi

onal

tour

ist fa

cilit

ies

and

attr

actio

ns m

ust c

ontr

ibut

e to

the

und

erst

andi

ng a

nd e

njoy

men

t of t

he W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV

as w

ell a

s en

surin

g vis

itor

disp

ersa

l and

the

pos

itive

man

agem

ent o

f visi

tor

pres

sure

s

Polic

y 2b

–Pu

t in

plac

e ap

prop

riate

add

ition

al g

uida

nce

to e

nsur

e th

at d

evel

opm

ent w

ithin

the

set

ting

of t

he W

HS

prot

ects

and

enh

ance

s th

e Si

te a

nd it

s at

trib

utes

of O

UV

Aim

2: T

he

WH

S b

ou

nd

ary

sh

ou

ld e

nsu

re t

he

in

tegri

ty o

f th

e W

HS

is

main

tain

ed

an

d e

nh

an

ced

by in

clu

din

g s

ign

ifican

t

arc

haeo

logic

al fe

atu

res

an

d in

terr

ela

tio

nsh

ips

that

refl

ect

the

att

rib

ute

s o

f th

e O

UV

Polic

y 2a

– Pr

opos

e to

UN

ESCO

a m

inor

mod

ifica

tion

of t

he b

ound

ary

at S

tone

heng

e to

enh

ance

the

inte

grity

of t

he W

HS

Sto

ne

he

nge

Th

e B

ou

nd

ary

an

d S

ett

ing o

f th

e W

orl

d H

eri

tage

Sit

e


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

15 16

Prod

uce

a W

HS

Sett

ing

Stud

y to

incl

ude

rela

ted

guid

ance

and

a m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r as

sess

ing

impa

cts

on th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V. Id

entif

y an

d m

ap k

ey v

iew

s be

twee

n th

e at

trib

utes

of

OU

V

and

both

into

and

out

of

the

WH

S as

par

t of

this

proc

ess.

Ado

pt a

s pa

rt o

f w

ider

WH

S pl

anni

ng

guid

ance

/SPD

Prod

uce

a la

ndsc

ape-

scal

e W

HS

Burr

owin

g A

nim

al

Stra

tegy

usin

g la

test

evi

denc

e an

d in

form

atio

n fr

om

the

2010

WH

S Co

nditi

on S

urve

y an

d Ba

dger

Sur

vey.

D

evel

op g

ood

prac

tice

guid

ance

and

exa

mpl

e ca

se

stud

ies

to e

ncou

rage

a la

ndsc

ape-

scal

e ap

proa

ch

build

ing

on e

xist

ing

stud

ies.

Iden

tify

prio

rity

actio

ns

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NE

HE,

WH

SCU

, N

WD

AO

NB

HE,

NT,

W

HSC

U,

MoD

, Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, E

H

1b

/ 4

2a

/13

2b/1

4

3c/3

0, 3

1 &

32

3a

/18

3e

/49

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Sett

ing

Stud

y pr

oduc

ed a

nd u

sed

by

plan

ners

Ado

pted

as

part

of

Plan

ning

gui

danc

e/SP

DIn

form

s bo

unda

ry

revi

ew

Land

scap

e-sc

ale

guid

ance

ava

ilabl

e to

al

l par

tner

s to

ass

ist in

eff

ectiv

ely

cont

rolli

ng

dam

age

acro

ss th

e W

HS

Mea

sure

d by

res

ults

of

next

WH

S C

ondi

tion

Surv

ey

1/ 2016

1/ 2016

Aim

3: S

ust

ain

th

e O

UV

of

the

WH

S t

hro

ugh

th

e c

on

serv

ati

on

an

d e

nh

an

ce

me

nt

of

the

Sit

e a

nd

its

att

rib

ute

s o

f O

UV

Polic

y 3a

– M

anag

e th

e W

HS

to p

rote

ct t

he p

hysic

al re

mai

ns w

hich

con

trib

ute

to it

s at

trib

utes

of O

UV

and

impr

ove

thei

r co

nditi

on

Co

nse

rvati

on

of

the

Wo

rld

He

rita

ge

Sit

eC

ON

SE

RV

E


207

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

17 18 19 20

Und

erta

ke a

revi

ew o

f sch

edul

ed m

onum

ents

and

cu

rren

t und

esig

nate

d m

onum

ents

whi

ch a

re o

f po

tent

ial n

atio

nal i

mpo

rtan

ce w

ith a

vie

w to

prio

ritisi

ng

and

deve

lopi

ng p

ropo

sals

for a

des

igna

tion

revi

ew

Use

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

to id

entif

y an

d pr

iorit

ise

wor

ks fo

r co

ntin

ued

targ

eted

man

agem

ent a

nd

cons

erva

tion

wor

k to

miti

gate

neg

ativ

e im

pact

s fr

om c

ultiv

atio

n, b

urro

win

g an

imal

s, s

tock

, scr

ub

and

vehi

cle

and

visit

or e

rosio

n. (A

rabl

e re

vers

ion

oppo

rtun

ities

map

ping

rel

ated

to m

inim

ising

dam

age

from

cul

tivat

ion)

Prep

are

(or

upda

te w

here

exi

stin

g) c

onse

rvat

ion

stat

emen

ts fo

r al

l gua

rdia

nshi

p an

d ot

her

maj

or s

ite

Revi

ew g

uide

lines

for

utili

ty c

ompa

nies

wor

king

w

ithin

the

WH

S an

d its

set

ting.

Lia

ise w

ith

com

pani

es to

ens

ure

guid

elin

es a

re a

dher

ed to

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

(NT

)

EH WH

SCU

HE,

DC

MS,

A

SAH

RG,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, N

T

HE,

NE,

LO

, M

oD, E

H

NT,

HE

NT,

HE,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

N

WD

AO

NB

7b

/160

3a

/16

3e

/47

& 4

9

3f/

51

4a/7

0

6b

/143

3c/8

8

3d

/ 41

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Repo

rt p

repa

red

on

the

issue

s an

d ho

w

they

sho

uld

be p

rior-

itise

d

Mea

sure

d by

res

ults

of

next

WH

S C

ondi

tion

Surv

ey

A r

educ

tion

in

mon

umen

ts im

pact

ed

by s

crub

and

ero

sion

by p

eopl

e an

d an

imal

s

All

guar

dian

ship

m

onum

ents

hav

e a

cons

erva

tion

stat

emen

t ava

ilabl

e to

pa

rtne

rs

App

ropr

iate

gui

delin

es

dist

ribut

ed a

nd

redu

ced

inci

dent

s of

un

auth

orise

d da

mag

e

1/ 2018

1/ 2016

2/ 2020

2/

2016


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

21 22 23 24 25 26

Wor

k w

ith la

ndow

ners

to d

iscou

rage

met

al d

etec

ting

with

in th

e W

HS

and

deve

lop

WH

S po

licy

Sto

ne

he

nge

Fina

lise

and

publ

ish E

nglis

h H

erita

ge’s

Ston

ehen

ge

Con

serv

atio

n St

atem

ent (

2015

) and

impl

emen

t re

com

men

datio

ns. U

nder

take

a r

isk a

sses

smen

t to

ass

ess

the

susc

eptib

ility

of

ston

e ca

rvin

gs a

nd

dres

sing

to d

amag

e. D

esig

n ap

prop

riate

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

.

Des

ign

and

impl

emen

t man

agem

ent s

yste

m o

n By

way

12

to p

reve

nt d

amag

e to

bot

h su

rfac

e an

d bu

ried

arch

aeol

ogy

Div

ert a

cces

s tr

ack

curr

ently

run

ning

acr

oss

Cur

sus

long

bar

row

(Am

esbu

ry 4

2) to

avo

id d

amag

e.

Des

ign

and

impl

emen

t man

agem

ent s

yste

m o

n th

e R

idge

way

Nat

iona

l Tra

il to

pre

vent

dam

age

to b

oth

surf

ace

and

burie

d ar

chae

olog

y. P

rodu

ce

case

stu

dy/s

tand

ards

gui

danc

e ap

plic

able

to o

ther

ar

cheo

logi

cally

sen

sitiv

e lo

catio

ns

Loca

l Man

agem

ent A

gree

men

ts (L

MA

) will

be

rene

wed

on

time

with

ade

quat

e fu

ndin

g to

faci

litat

e be

st p

ract

ice

cons

erva

tion

and

man

agem

ent

WH

SCU

EH Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Rid

gew

ay

Nat

iona

l Tra

il

EH

NE,

HE,

PA

S,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NT

HE

NT

/HE

NT,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, N

E,

Frie

nds

of

the

Rid

gew

ay,

NW

DA

ON

B H

E

NT

3f/

54

5c/

118

–

6b

/143

6b

/ 14

4

6b

/143

& 1

44

5a

/101

& 1

02

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

No

met

al de

tect

ing

activ

i-ty

or e

viden

ce o

f dam

age

Prod

uce

guid

ance

leafl

et

for l

ando

wne

rs

Impr

oved

pro

tect

ion

of

Ston

ehen

ge m

onum

ent

and

its s

ettin

g

Dam

age

to a

rcha

eolo

gy

on B

yway

12

prev

ente

d

Trac

k di

vert

ed a

way

fro

m C

ursu

s lo

ng b

arro

w

Rid

gew

ay N

atio

nal

Trai

l mai

ntai

ned

to a

n ac

cept

able

sta

ndar

d w

hile

arc

haeo

logy

, its

se

ttin

g an

d la

ndsc

ape

char

acte

r co

nser

ved

and

enha

nced

.

Stan

dard

s gu

idan

ce

prod

uced

LMA

in p

lace

and

re

gula

rly

mon

itore

d

3/ 2019

2/ 2020

1/ 2017

3/ 2020

1/ 2016

1/20

14/

2019

Ave

bu

ry


209

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

27 28 29 30

Und

erta

ke r

epea

t WH

S-w

ide

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

us

ing

as a

bas

is th

e m

etho

dolo

gy e

stab

lishe

d in

the

2010

Sur

vey

Revi

ew W

HS

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

and

agr

ee a

re

port

ing

proc

edur

e w

ith r

elev

ant p

artn

ers

Revi

ew h

eadl

ine

prio

ritie

s on

an

annu

al b

asis

for

cons

erva

tion

wor

ks in

res

pons

e to

WH

S m

onito

ring

indi

cato

rs

Repo

rt to

WH

SCs

and

WH

SPP

Prod

uce

WH

S H

istor

ic L

ands

cape

Cha

ract

erisa

tion

(HLC

) cas

e st

udie

s ba

sed

on W

iltsh

ire C

ounc

il H

LC

to in

form

WH

S La

ndsc

ape

Stra

tegy

HE

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NE,

NT,

LO

, EH

, WH

SCU

, M

oD

HE,

NT,

NE,

EH

, RSP

B,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il,

NW

DA

ON

B

HE,

NT,

NE,

EH

, RSP

B,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

HE,

N

WD

AO

NB

3b

/29

4a

/70

3b

/27

2b

/15

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Surv

ey r

esul

ts, i

nclu

ding

di

gita

l geo

-dat

a,

avai

labl

e to

all

WH

S pa

rtne

rs. P

riorit

ies

and

man

agem

ent

appr

oach

es s

et o

ut in

th

e re

port

Acc

urat

e da

ta

prov

ided

by

part

ners

to

WH

SCU

to

enab

le U

NES

CO

Pe

riodi

c Re

port

ing

and

resp

onsi

ve

man

agem

ent

Man

agem

ent r

egim

e ad

just

ed to

refl

ect

chan

ges

in c

ondi

tions

Revi

se a

nnua

l act

ion

plan

if r

equi

red

Com

plet

ed c

ompr

e-he

nsiv

e H

LC p

rovi

ded

to W

HS

part

ners

and

H

istor

ic E

nviro

nmen

t Re

cord

(HER

)

2020

2/ 2016

2/ 2016

2/ 2015

1/20

15

Polic

y 3b

– R

evie

w re

gula

rly t

he c

ondi

tion

and

vuln

erab

ility

of a

ll ar

chae

olog

ical s

ites

and

mon

umen

ts t

hrou

ghou

t the

WH

S to

gui

de m

anag

emen

t act

ions

and

futu

re p

riorit

ies

Polic

y 3c

– M

aint

ain

and

enha

nce

the

sett

ing

of m

onum

ents

and

site

s in

the

land

scap

e an

d th

eir

inte

rrel

atio

nshi

ps a

nd a

stro

nom

ical a

lignm

ents

with

par

ticul

ar a

tten

tion

give

n to

ac

hiev

ing

an a

ppro

pria

te la

ndsc

ape

sett

ing

for

the

mon

umen

ts a

nd t

he W

HS

itsel

f


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

31 32 33 34 35

Iden

tify

key

view

s be

twee

n th

e at

trib

utes

of

OU

V

and

both

into

and

out

of

the

WH

S. Id

entif

y ke

y as

tron

omic

al a

lignm

ents

Prod

uce

a W

HS

Land

scap

e St

rate

gy to

art

icul

ate

a la

ndsc

ape-

scal

e as

pira

tion

for

the

WH

S.

Info

rmed

by

WH

S W

oodl

and

Stra

tegy

, Cha

lk

Gra

ssla

nd S

trat

egy

and

the

WH

S Se

ttin

g St

udy

and

the

Nor

th W

esse

x D

owns

AO

NB

Man

agem

ent P

lan

amon

gst o

ther

rel

evan

t doc

umen

ts

Revi

ew th

e ne

ed fo

r a

spec

ific

polic

y on

ar

chae

olog

ical

res

tora

tion

and

reco

nstr

uctio

n in

th

e W

HS

Wor

k w

ith p

lann

ers

and

paris

h/to

wn

coun

cils

to

redu

ce a

dver

tisem

ents

, ban

ners

and

sig

nage

with

in

the

WH

S bo

th th

roug

h th

e pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss a

nd

whe

re fo

rmal

pla

nnin

g pe

rmiss

ion

is no

t req

uire

d.

Wor

k w

ith c

ivili

an a

nd m

ilita

ry p

artn

ers

to a

void

ov

erfly

ing

the

WH

S

Und

erta

ke a

rev

iew

of

impa

cts

(incl

udin

g vi

sual

) of

Visi

tor

Cen

tre

and

asso

ciat

ed d

evel

opm

ents

on

the

WH

S la

ndsc

ape

Refle

ct r

esul

ts in

WH

S La

ndsc

ape

Stra

tegy

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NW

DA

ON

B/W

HSC

U

ASA

HRG

Paris

h/To

wn

Cou

ncils

EH

HE,

WH

SCU

, N

WD

AO

NB

HE,

NE,

NT,

R

SPB,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

HE

WH

SCU

,W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

NW

DA

ON

B

NT,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

2b

/15

2b

/15

3c/3

6

3h

/57,

58

&

60 3i/

62

–

1f/

12

3i/

62

6a

/135

& 1

36

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Key

view

s id

entifi

ed

Solst

itial

alig

nmen

ts

iden

tified

WH

S La

ndsc

ape

Stra

tegy

com

plet

e an

d us

ed to

info

rm

deve

lopm

ent

man

agem

ent a

nd

attr

act g

rant

fund

ing

Prac

tical

gui

danc

e av

aila

ble

for

LO,

man

ager

s an

d pl

anne

rs

Polic

y ag

reed

by

ASA

HRG

and

ava

ilabl

e on

line

if re

quire

d

Redu

ced

clut

ter

Impa

cts

iden

tified

and

m

itiga

tion

stra

tegi

es

adop

ted

1/20

15

2/20

19

3/ 2018

2/ Ong

oing

2/ 2020

Sto

ne

he

nge


211

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Agr

ee a

nd im

plem

ent a

ctio

ns to

impr

ove

the

sett

ing

and

inte

grity

of

Woo

dhen

ge a

nd D

urrin

gton

Wal

ls

Redu

ce th

e in

trus

ion

of th

e B4

003

and

traffi

c on

the

Wes

t Ken

net A

venu

e H

alt r

oad-

edge

ero

sion

of s

ched

uled

are

as a

nd

man

age

park

ing

Repl

ace

1950

s co

nser

vatio

n m

easu

res

at W

est

Kenn

et L

ong

Barr

ow to

impr

ove

cond

ition

and

in

tegr

ity o

f th

e m

onum

ent w

ith a

less

intr

usiv

e de

sign

and

mat

eria

ls

Less

en in

trus

ion

in th

e se

ttin

g of

Silb

ury

Hill

, the

Sa

nctu

ary

and

Ove

rton

Hill

Bar

row

Cem

eter

y al

ong

the

A4

from

roa

ds a

nd tr

affic

Impr

ove

sett

ing

of th

e Sa

nctu

ary

and

Ove

rton

Hill

Ba

rrow

Cem

eter

yRe

mov

e sc

rub

and

tree

s, a

nd m

anag

e re

cent

he

dger

ow p

lant

ing

to r

esto

re th

e sil

houe

tte

of

barr

ows

from

the

east

36 37 38 39 40

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

EH Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NT,

EH

, A

mes

bury

and

D

urrin

gton

To

wn

Cou

ncils

, M

oDH

E, W

HSC

U

NT

N

WD

AO

NB

HE,

NT

NT,

LO

, HE,

N

WD

AO

NB

NT,

LO

, HE,

R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail,

N

WD

AO

NB

1/ 2018

1/ 2018

2/ 2016

2/ 2020

1/ 2020

3c/3

2

6a

/138

3a

/19

6a

/139

3i/

62

6a

/139

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Sett

ing

and

inte

grity

of

Woo

dhen

ge a

nd

Dur

ringt

on W

alls

signi

fican

tly e

nhan

ced

incl

udin

g ca

r pa

rk, o

ld

road

bed

and

scr

ub

rem

oval

Solu

tion

reco

mm

ende

d in

the

WH

S Tr

ansp

ort S

trate

gy

impl

emen

ted

Inte

grity

and

set

ting

of th

e m

onum

ent

signi

fican

tly im

prov

ed

Inte

grity

of

the

long

ba

rrow

impr

oved

1950

s sc

hem

e re

cord

ed b

efor

e re

mov

al

WH

S Tr

ansp

ort S

trate

gy

reco

mm

enda

tions

im

plem

ente

d

Scru

b re

mov

ed a

nd

silho

uett

e re

stor

ed

Ave

bu

ry


Pow

er c

able

s in

se

nsiti

ve p

ositi

ons

iden

tified

and

un

derg

roun

ded

WH

S la

ndsc

ape

impr

oved

by

rem

oval

of

red

unda

nt fe

ncin

g

Sew

age

wor

ks re

mov

ed

from

Cur

sus

Reco

rd o

f m

ilita

ry

infr

astr

uctu

re m

ade

prio

r to

rem

oval

Sew

age

wor

ks

relo

cate

d to

a p

ositi

on

outs

ide

the

WH

S

Sett

ing

of th

e C

ursu

s en

hanc

ed

Num

bers

rep

orte

d cl

imbi

ng S

ilbur

y H

ill

redu

ced

Dec

ision

reg

ardi

ng

feas

ibili

ty o

f ch

ange

s to

fe

ncin

g

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Iden

tify

intr

usiv

e po

wer

line

s an

d se

ek o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

furt

her

unde

rgro

undi

ng

Rem

ove

redu

ndan

t fen

ces

whe

re p

ossib

le a

nd

appr

opria

te a

nd e

nsur

e ne

cess

ary

fenc

ing

is m

aint

aine

d in

a g

ood

stat

e of

rep

air

to e

nhan

ce

WH

S la

ndsc

ape

Rem

ove

redu

ndan

t sew

age

outfa

ll in

fras

truc

ture

fr

om th

e C

ursu

s an

d St

oneh

enge

Bot

tom

Com

plet

e pl

anne

d w

orks

to r

educ

e ad

vers

e im

pact

of

Lar

khill

sew

age

wor

ks. L

ook

for

oppo

rtun

ities

to

relo

cate

and

enh

ance

the

WH

S an

d its

set

ting

Revi

ew fe

ncin

g to

red

uce

visu

al in

trus

ion

whi

le s

till

prov

idin

g an

effe

ctiv

e de

terr

ent t

o cl

imbi

ng S

ilbur

y H

ill a

nd e

nabl

ing

saf

e gr

azin

g of

the

SSSI

WH

SCU

LO MoD

MoD

NT

NW

DA

ON

B,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il,

SSE,

LO

NT,

EH

, NE

HE,

NT

HE

EH, N

E

2/ Ong

oing

3/ Ong

oing

1/ 2015

1/ 2016

2/ 2016

3a

/20

3d

/45

3e

/48

–

–

3d

/42

3e

/48

Gra

nt/

priv

ate

sect

or

fund

ing

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

41 42 43 44 45Polic

y 3d

– Im

prov

e th

e W

HS

land

scap

e by

the

rem

oval

, red

esig

n or

scr

eeni

ng o

f exi

stin

g in

trus

ive s

truc

ture

s su

ch a

s po

wer

line

s, fe

nces

and

uns

ight

ly b

uild

ings

w

here

opp

ortu

nitie

s ar

ise

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry


213

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Revi

ew o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

long

-ter

m r

eloc

atio

n of

A

vebu

ry &

Dist

rict C

lub

Hou

se to

a le

ss s

ensit

ive

posit

ion

Con

tinue

and

car

ry o

ut a

dditi

onal

scr

ub c

ontr

ol a

nd

man

age

woo

dlan

d an

d he

dges

to e

nhan

ce la

ndsc

ape

view

s

Rem

ove

dam

agin

g or

intr

usiv

e fe

nces

whe

re p

ossib

le

to im

prov

e co

nditi

on a

nd v

isibi

lity

of m

onum

ents

Und

erta

ke a

ppro

pria

te m

anag

emen

t of

burr

owin

g an

imal

s w

ith a

dvic

e fr

om N

E to

pro

tect

the

mon

umen

t with

out h

arm

ing

the

sett

ing

of th

e aff

ecte

d m

onum

ents

Dev

elop

a s

ensit

ive

evid

ence

-bas

ed a

ppro

ach

to

enha

ncin

g th

e vi

sibili

ty o

f bu

ried

mon

umen

ts s

uch

as

the

Wes

t Ken

net P

alisa

de E

nclo

sure

s

Ave

bury

PC

LO, N

E, N

T,

EH, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

W

WT

LO, N

E, N

T,

EH, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

WW

T

LO, N

E, N

T,

EH, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

W

WT

HE

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NE,

NT,

EH

, M

oD

MoD

NT,

LO

, N

WD

AO

NB,

A

SAH

RG

3/ Long

-ter

m

1/ Ong

oing

1/ Ong

oing

1/ Ong

oing

2/ 2018

– 3a

/18

3i/

62

3d

/42

& 4

5

3a

/6 &

18

5a

/99

Gra

nt/

Priv

ate

sect

or fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

/G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

/G

rant

fund

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Via

ble/

acce

ssib

le C

lub

Hou

se in

less

sen

sitiv

e lo

catio

n fo

r at

trib

utes

of

OU

V

Her

itage

at R

isk s

tatu

s re

duce

d

Prio

rity

wor

ks

com

plet

ed

Visi

bilit

y of

m

onum

ents

impr

oved

Impr

oved

visi

bilit

y of

bu

ried

arch

aeol

ogy

46 47 48 49 50Polic

y 3e

– C

onse

rve

and/

or m

ake

mor

e vis

ible

bur

ied,

deg

rade

d or

obs

cure

d ar

chae

olog

ical f

eatu

res

with

in t

he W

HS

with

out d

etra

ctin

g fro

m t

heir

intr

insic

form

and

cha

ract

er


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

51 52 53 54

Seek

con

vers

ion

to g

rass

land

for m

onum

ents

and

sit

es v

ulne

rabl

e to

or c

urre

ntly

affe

cted

by

culti

vatio

n.

Prio

ritise

bas

ed o

n th

e H

erita

ge a

t Risk

regis

ter,

the

WH

S Co

nditi

on S

urve

y an

d th

e W

HS

Ara

ble

Reve

rsio

n O

ppor

tuni

ties M

appi

ng. T

he la

tter i

nclu

des t

hose

cu

rren

tly u

nsch

edul

ed a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV

that

requ

ire

prot

ectio

n.

Refe

r to

rele

vant

doc

umen

ts in

cludi

ng N

WD

AO

NB

Cha

lk G

rass

land

Str

ateg

y an

d A

rabl

e Bi

odiv

ersit

y St

rate

gy

Seek

to m

aint

ain

and

esta

blish

sem

i-nat

ural

, spe

cies

-ric

h gr

assla

nd to

ach

ieve

a m

ore

appr

opria

te

land

scap

e se

ttin

g fo

r ar

chae

olog

ical

site

s an

d m

onum

ents

Agr

ee m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r m

onito

ring

graz

ing

leve

ls on

th

e co

nditi

on o

f th

e W

HS

in a

dvan

ce o

f th

e ne

xt

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

Con

tinue

to d

evel

op a

nd im

prov

e re

latio

nshi

ps

with

farm

ers

and

land

owne

rs to

enc

oura

ge u

ptak

e of

agr

i-env

ironm

ent s

chem

es a

nd W

HS

Woo

dlan

d St

rate

gy a

nd o

ther

gui

danc

e pr

oduc

ed

Prod

uce

leafl

et, w

eb r

esou

rce

or o

ffer

targ

eted

w

orks

hops

follo

win

g co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith fa

rmer

s on

th

eir

pref

erre

d ap

proa

ch to

com

mun

icat

ion

NE

NE

NE

WH

SCU

LO, W

HSC

U,

HE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, N

T,

EH,

NW

DA

ON

B

LO, W

HSC

U,

HE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il , N

T,

Flor

a Lo

cale

NT,

HE,

LO

NE.

HE,

N

T, L

O,

NW

DA

ON

B,

CLA

, NFU

, N

IA, L

NP

1/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

2/ 2017

1/ On-

goin

g

2017

3a

/18

3h

/58

3b

/28

3a

/ 21

3i/

62

5b

/106

5e

/123

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g/

agri-

envi

ron-

men

t (A

E)

sche

mes

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

gra

nt/

priv

ate

sect

or

fund

ing

Iden

tified

prio

rity

area

s ar

e un

der

gras

s an

d pr

otec

ted

Num

ber

of

mon

umen

ts a

nd s

ites

on H

erita

ge a

t Risk

Re

gist

er r

educ

ed

Con

ditio

n su

rvey

re

sults

refl

ect

impr

ovem

ent

Upt

ake

of A

E sc

hem

es

with

app

ropr

iate

opt

ions

Sett

ing

of s

ites

and

mon

umen

ts e

nhan

ced

Met

hodo

logy

use

d by

LO

and

man

ager

s

Land

that

can

be

in s

chem

e un

der

agre

emen

t with

de

liver

y/ca

pita

l wor

ks

plan

s

Com

mun

icat

ion

appr

oach

agr

eed

Polic

y 3f

– E

ncou

rage

land

man

agem

ent a

ctivi

ties

and

mea

sure

s to

max

imise

the

pro

tect

ion

of a

rcha

eolo

gica

l mon

umen

ts a

nd s

ites

as w

ell a

s th

eir

sett

ings

, an

d th

e se

ttin

g of

the

WH

S its

elf


215

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

55 56

Expl

ore

othe

r ar

rang

emen

ts a

nd s

ourc

es o

f fu

ndin

g w

here

con

serv

atio

n is

requ

ired

but a

gri-e

nviro

nmen

t sc

hem

es m

ay n

ot b

e ap

prop

riate

or

take

n up

a.

Enc

oura

ge a

rabl

e be

st p

ract

ice,

em

ploy

the

Con

-se

rvat

ion

of S

ched

uled

Mon

umen

ts in

Cul

tivat

ion

(CO

SMIC

) met

hodo

logy

or

simila

r to

est

ablis

h to

leas

t har

mfu

l cul

tivat

ion

met

hod.

Pro

duce

gu

idan

ce o

n ar

able

man

agem

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

with

in th

e W

HS.

Incl

ude

mon

itorin

g of

impa

cts

on m

onum

ents

in c

ultiv

atio

n in

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

. b.

Enc

oura

ge a

ltern

ativ

e ag

reem

ents

eg

Her

itage

Pa

rtne

rshi

p A

gree

men

ts b

etw

een

HE

and

land

owne

rs

c. I

dent

ify o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

deve

lope

r fu

ndin

g to

co

ntrib

ute

to b

iodi

vers

ity e

nhan

cem

ents

Esta

blish

a w

orki

ng g

roup

to e

xplo

re th

e

appr

oach

es to

ret

aini

ng p

revi

ousl

y re

vert

ed la

nd

and

poss

ible

long

er te

rm fu

ndin

g/m

anag

emen

t ag

reem

ent.

Feed

rec

omm

enda

tions

to D

efra

, NE,

H

E an

d ot

her

rele

vant

nat

iona

l bod

ies

to m

ake

th

e ca

se fo

r co

ntin

ued

fund

ing

and

targ

etin

g of

the

WH

S us

ing

exam

ples

of

achi

evem

ents

and

mul

tiple

pu

blic

ben

efits

NE

NE

HE,

LO

, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

C

LA, N

FU

WH

SCU

, HE,

W

WT

2/ Ong

oing

1/ 2016

/ O

ngoi

ng

8b

/174

1b

/3

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Redu

ce R

isk R

atin

g on

Her

itage

at R

isk

regi

ster

Con

ditio

n su

rvey

re

sults

refl

ect

impr

ovem

ents

in

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV

Gui

danc

e on

WH

S ar

able

man

agem

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

pr

oduc

ed a

nd

circ

ulat

ed to

LO

/fa

rmer

s

Reco

mm

enda

tions

on

pos

sible

long

-ter

m

solu

tions

to r

etai

ning

pr

otec

tion

from

cu

ltiva

tion

Mai

ntai

n W

HS

as a

ta

rget

ing

prio

rity

Polic

y 3g

– M

aint

ain,

enh

ance

and

ext

end

exist

ing

area

s of

per

man

ent g

rass

land

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te

Polic

y 3h

– E

xplo

re a

nd d

evel

op s

yner

gies

bet

wee

n th

e hi

stor

ic an

d na

tura

l env

ironm

ent t

o be

nefit

the

WH

S an

d th

e m

aint

enan

ce o

f its

OU

V. M

aint

ain

and

enha

nce

the

over

all n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n va

lue

of t

he W

HS,

in p

artic

ular

: mai

ntai

n, e

nhan

ce a

nd e

xten

d th

e ex

istin

g ar

eas

of fl

orist

ically

ric

h ch

alk

dow

nlan

d tu

rf;

enha

nce

the

biod

ivers

ity o

f per

man

ent g

rass

land

to e

xten

d th

e ar

ea o

f spe

cies

-ric

h gr

assla

nd a

nd p

rovid

e ha

bita

t for

bird

s, in

vert

ebra

tes,

bat

s an

d ot

her

wild

life.

Se

ek o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

the

expa

nsio

n of

cha

lk g

rass

land

whe

re c

onsis

tent

with

pro

tect

ing

the

WH

S to

sus

tain

its

OU

V an

d re

leva

nt b

iodi

vers

ity ta

rget

s. E

xten

d an

d se

ek n

ew li

nks

with

rele

vant

con

serv

atio

n bo

dies

, pro

gram

mes

and

initi

ative

s


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Prod

uce

WH

S C

halk

Gra

ssla

nd S

trat

egy

to

be in

form

ed b

y th

e W

HS

Ara

ble

Reve

rsio

n O

ppor

tuni

ties

map

ping

pro

ject

and

oth

er r

elev

ant

data

set

s. E

xplo

re w

ider

land

scap

e st

udie

s id

entif

ying

lin

ks to

oth

er a

reas

of

chal

k gr

assla

nd b

eyon

d th

e W

HS.

Iden

tify

oppo

rtun

ities

for

impr

ovin

g bi

odiv

ersit

y of

per

man

ent g

rass

land

are

as a

nd in

clud

e in

WH

S C

halk

Gra

ssla

nd S

trat

egy

Con

tinue

to p

rote

ct a

nd e

ncou

rage

S41

Bio

dive

rsity

A

ctio

n Pl

an s

peci

es s

uch

as s

tone

-cur

lew

s th

roug

h ap

prop

riate

man

agem

ent.

Seek

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

es

tabl

ish fu

rthe

r st

one-

curle

w p

lots

and

scr

apes

w

here

they

do

not a

dver

sely

impa

ct o

n th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V, a

re a

way

from

pub

lic

acce

ss a

nd w

ithin

or

clos

e to

are

as o

f sp

ecie

s-ric

h gr

assla

nd v

ia r

evie

w o

f th

e st

one-

curle

w s

trat

egy.

NE

NE

NE

57 58 59

NW

DA

ON

B,

CC

AO

NB,

EH

, HE,

MoD

, N

IA, L

NP,

R

SPB,

WW

T,

WSR

C,N

T,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

RSP

B, L

O, N

T,

NW

DA

ON

B

NT,

LO

, MoD

, Bu

mbl

ebee

C

onse

rvat

ion

Trus

t, W

WT,

R

SPB

Wilt

shire

C

halk

Cou

ntry

Fu

ture

scap

e,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

2/ 2015

2/ 2016

2/ Ong

oing

/ 20

17

3c/3

2

3g

/56

3h

/58

& 6

0

3c/3

2

3f/

52

3g

/57

3c/3

2

3h

/58

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Cha

lk G

rass

land

St

rate

gy p

rodu

ced

and

shar

ed w

ith p

artn

ers

Stra

tegy

info

rms

m

anag

emen

t dec

ision

s

Obj

ectiv

es r

elat

ing

to

Polic

y 3h

met

Obj

ectiv

es o

f W

HS

cons

erva

tion

part

ners

m

et

Sche

me

mon

itorin

g sh

ows

incr

ease

d sp

ecie

s di

vers

ity a

nd

impr

oved

upt

ake

of

appr

opria

te o

ptio

ns

Mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

re

late

d to

rel

evan

t pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

show

impr

ovem

ent


217

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Expa

nd e

xist

ing

and

deve

lop

new

link

s w

ith

cons

erva

tion

bodi

es, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd in

itiat

ives

w

orki

ng in

and

aro

und

the

WH

S to

exp

lore

in

tegr

ated

man

agem

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties,

hig

hlig

ht th

e va

lue

of th

e W

HS,

its

spec

ific

man

agem

ent n

eeds

/co

nstr

aint

s an

d jo

int f

undi

ng p

roje

cts.

Lo

ok fo

r sy

nerg

ies

with

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

na

tura

l env

ironm

ent t

arge

ted

Euro

pean

dire

ctiv

es

incl

udin

g th

e W

ater

Fra

mew

ork

and

Hab

itat

Dire

ctiv

es a

nd R

iver

Bas

in M

anag

emen

t Pla

n as

wel

l as

the

appr

oach

to m

anag

emen

t of

natio

nal n

atur

al

desig

natio

ns s

uch

as S

ite o

f Sp

ecia

l Sci

entifi

c In

tere

st

(SSS

I) an

d N

atio

nal N

atur

e Re

serv

e (N

NR)

that

may

al

so b

enefi

t the

WH

S an

d its

att

ribut

es o

f O

UV

Col

late

dat

a fr

om p

artn

er m

onito

ring

and

prod

uce

map

ping

of

ecol

ogic

al v

alue

and

con

nect

ivity

with

in

the

WH

S an

d su

rrou

ndin

g ar

eas

and

inco

rpor

ate

into

WH

S G

IS

Prom

ote

the

WH

S W

oodl

and

Stra

tegy

re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd e

ncou

rage

thei

r im

plem

enta

tion

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

60 61 62

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, N

E,

NIA

, oth

er

loca

l lan

d-sc

ape-

scal

e pr

ojec

ts, L

NPs

, W

WT,

N

WD

AO

NB

Cat

chm

ent

part

ners

hips

, N

T, R

SPB

Wilt

shire

C

halk

Cou

ntry

Fu

ture

scap

e

NE,

RSP

B,

WW

T,N

T,

WBR

C

NT,

HE,

MoD

, N

E, F

C, L

O,

NW

DA

ON

B

1/ 2015

/16

2/ 2016

2/ 2015

1c/7

3c/3

2

3h

/57

5a

/93

7b

/161

7c/1

69

3c/3

2 &

40

3e

/47

3f/

54

3i/

63–6

4

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Map

indi

catin

g op

por-

tuni

ties

for

bene

fits

to b

oth

hist

oric

and

na

tura

l env

ironm

ents

Polic

y 3i

– S

usta

in a

nd e

nhan

ce t

he a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV

thro

ugh

woo

dlan

d m

anag

emen

t whi

le ta

king

into

acc

ount

the

WH

S’s

ecol

ogica

l and

land

scap

e va

lues


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

Rem

ove

tree

s fr

om n

orth

-eas

tern

end

of

Cur

sus

to p

reve

nt d

amag

e to

mon

umen

t. A

gree

rep

lant

ing

sche

me

with

app

ropr

iate

arc

haeo

logi

cal m

itiga

tion

to

impr

ove

sett

ing

and

prot

ectio

n of

mon

umen

t whi

lst

prov

idin

g fo

r sc

reen

ing

of e

xist

ing

intr

usiv

e fe

atur

es.

Mai

ntai

n sc

reen

ing

of e

xist

ing

build

ings

in li

ne w

ith

WH

S W

oodl

and

Stra

tegy

Reta

in a

nd m

anag

e cr

itica

l bee

ch s

cree

ning

at a

n ap

prop

riate

hei

ght o

n bo

unda

ry o

f R

awlin

s M

obile

H

ome

Park

Impl

emen

t mon

itorin

g an

d ad

apta

tion

stra

tegi

es

iden

tified

in th

e St

oneh

enge

and

Ave

bury

WH

S Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

Risk

Ass

essm

ent (

2014

). Re

view

the

Risk

Ass

essm

ent e

very

5 y

ears

Iden

tify

pote

ntia

l risk

s to

the

WH

S, it

s at

trib

utes

of

OU

V, a

nd it

s m

anag

emen

t. En

sure

WH

S an

d pa

rtne

rs’ r

isk r

egist

ers

refle

ct

thes

e.

Iden

tify

and

resp

ond

to a

ny g

aps

MoD

NT

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

63 64 65 66

HE,

NT

LO NT,

EH

, LO

, N

E

NT,

EH

, MoD

, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

Pa

rish/

Tow

n C

ounc

ils

2/ 2015

3/ Ong

oing

1/ 2019

3/ 2016

3i/

62

3i/

62

4a

/70

8c/1

76

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Impr

ove

sett

ing

of

Cur

sus

and

prot

ect

mon

umen

t

Mob

ile h

ome

park

re

mai

ns la

rgel

y sc

reen

ed fr

om th

e ba

nks

of th

e H

enge

an

d as

far

as p

ossib

le

the

wid

er la

ndsc

ape

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry

Polic

y 3j

– P

rodu

ce r

isk m

anag

emen

t str

ateg

ies;

keep

und

er re

view

and

impl

emen

t as

nece

ssar

y


219

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

67 68

Impr

ove

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

visi

tor

num

bers

, m

ovem

ents

and

impa

cts

by r

evie

win

g da

ta a

vaila

ble,

id

entif

ying

gap

s an

d in

trod

ucin

g ap

prop

riate

dat

a co

llect

ion

whe

re r

equi

red.

Mak

e da

ta a

vaila

ble

to

WH

S pa

rtne

rs

Man

age

the

WH

S su

stai

nabl

y by

dev

elop

ing

targ

eted

ac

cess

and

disp

ersa

l str

ateg

ies

eg a

ppro

pria

te

loca

tion

of g

ates

and

info

rmat

ion

poin

ts. M

onito

r an

d re

spon

d ap

prop

riate

ly to

cha

nges

in v

isito

r nu

mbe

rs

and

patt

erns

incl

udin

g an

y ch

ange

s fo

llow

ing

the

open

ing

of th

e St

oneh

enge

Visi

tor

Cen

tre

(incl

udin

g an

y im

pact

on

Ave

bury

). U

se d

ata

colle

cted

from

pe

dest

rian

coun

ters

to e

nabl

e pa

rtne

rs to

targ

et

thei

r re

sour

ces

to m

itiga

te im

pact

of v

isito

rs o

n m

onum

ents

, lan

dsca

pes

and

loca

l com

mun

ities

. Ref

er

to E

colo

gica

l Man

agem

ent S

trate

gy fo

r Visi

tor A

cces

s to

th

e la

ndsc

ape

for

Ston

ehen

ge

WH

SCU

NT

EH, N

T, N

E,

Rid

gew

ay

Nat

iona

l Tra

il.

VW

, SM

, WM

EH

1/ 2016

1/ Ong

oing

4a

/70

4a

/ 70

4a

/71

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Dat

a av

aila

ble

acro

ss

the

WH

S av

aila

ble

to p

artn

ers

to in

form

m

anag

emen

t dec

ision

s

Cha

nges

to v

isito

r nu

mbe

rs a

nd p

atte

rns

resp

onde

d to

and

ne

gativ

e im

pact

s av

oide

d

PR

ES

EN

T A

ND

TR

AN

SM

IT

Vis

ion

: To

allo

w p

rese

nt a

nd fu

ture

gen

erat

ions

to e

xplo

re a

nd e

njoy

the

mon

umen

ts a

nd th

eir

land

scap

e se

ttin

g m

ore

fully

. We

will

also

ens

ure

that

the

spec

ial

qual

ities

of

the

Wor

ld H

erita

ge S

ite a

re p

rese

nted

, int

erpr

eted

and

enh

ance

d w

here

app

ropr

iate

, so

that

visi

tors

, the

loca

l com

mun

ity a

nd th

e w

hole

wor

ld

can

bett

er u

nder

stan

d an

d va

lue

the

extr

aord

inar

y ac

hiev

emen

ts o

f th

e pr

ehist

oric

peo

ple

who

left

us th

is ric

h le

gacy

. We

will

rea

lise

the

cultu

ral,

scie

ntifi

c an

d ed

ucat

iona

l pot

entia

l of

the

Wor

ld H

erita

ge S

ite a

s w

ell a

s its

soc

ial a

nd e

cono

mic

ben

efits

for

the

com

mun

ity

Vis

ito

r M

an

age

me

nt

an

d S

ust

ain

ab

le T

ou

rism

Aim

4: O

pti

mis

e p

hysi

cal an

d in

tellectu

al acce

ss t

o t

he

WH

S f

or

a r

an

ge

of

vis

ito

rs a

nd

re

alise

its

so

cia

l an

d e

co

no

mic

be

ne

fits

wh

ile

at

the

sam

e

tim

e p

rote

cti

ng t

he

WH

S a

nd

its

att

rib

ute

s o

f O

UV

Polic

y 4a

– M

anag

emen

t of v

isito

rs to

the

WH

S sh

ould

be

exem

plar

y an

d fo

llow

rele

vant

nat

iona

l and

inte

rnat

iona

l gui

danc

e on

sus

tain

able

tour

ism


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

69 70 71

Revi

ew e

xist

ing

data

on

visit

or u

nder

stan

ding

and

aw

aren

ess

of W

HS.

Whe

re n

eces

sary

impr

ove

or

com

miss

ion

new

res

earc

h to

est

ablis

h a

base

line

fr

om w

hich

this

can

be m

easu

red

over

tim

e

Inve

stig

ate

the

feas

ibili

ty w

ith W

HS

part

ners

of

a w

orka

ble

met

hod

for

sust

aina

ble

man

agem

ent s

uch

as a

sim

plifi

ed L

imits

of

Acc

epta

ble

Cha

nge

mod

el.

Mai

ntai

n a

sust

aina

ble

leve

l of

visit

or im

pact

s in

te

rms

of m

onum

ent c

ondi

tion,

com

mun

ity a

men

ity,

visit

or n

umbe

rs a

nd e

xper

ienc

e. T

his

will

be

affec

ted

by fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s w

eath

er c

ondi

tions

, dra

inag

e,

graz

ing,

oth

er m

anag

emen

t reg

imes

and

ava

ilabl

e re

sour

ces

Prod

uce

a W

HS

Sust

aina

ble

Tour

ism S

trat

egy

with

W

HS

part

ners

whi

ch r

eflec

ts th

e LA

C

Ensu

re b

rand

ing,

pos

ition

ing,

mar

ketin

g an

d pr

omot

ion

refle

cts

and

sust

ains

the

OU

V o

f th

e W

HS

Econ

omic

ben

efit s

houl

d re

ach

the

loca

l com

mun

ity

and

WH

S pa

rtne

rs r

equi

ring

fund

s fo

r co

nser

vatio

n an

d m

aint

aini

ng a

rcha

eolo

gica

l arc

hive

s.Li

nk w

ith V

isitW

iltsh

ire’s

tour

ism s

trat

egy

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

VW

VW

, EH

, NT,

N

E, S

M, W

M

NT,

EH

, HE,

Pa

rish

and

Tow

n C

ounc

ils,

LO Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, L

EP,

NW

DA

ON

B,

Paris

h an

d To

wns

C

ounc

ils,

Salis

bury

and

D

eviz

es

Fest

ival

s, E

H,

NT,

SM

, WM

, R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail,

LNP

2/ 2016

1/ 2016

1/ 2017

4a

/67

4a

/71

5e

/123

3a

/18

3b

/28

3j/

65

4a

/71

4d

/90

6a

/141

4a

/67–

70

4b

/77–

9 &

81

4c/8

3

5e

/123

–4 &

12

8

6c/1

46

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Dat

a on

visi

tor

expe

rienc

e an

d aw

aren

ess

of W

HS

avai

labl

e to

WH

SCU

Agr

eed

mod

el

in p

lace

Tim

ely

man

agem

ent

resp

onse

to a

gree

d tr

igge

rs

WH

S Su

stai

nabl

e To

urism

Str

ateg

y pu

blish

ed

Incr

ease

d vi

sitor

nu

mbe

rs to

Sal

isbur

y,

Wilt

shire

and

Ale

xan-

der

Keill

er M

useu

ms

Incr

ease

in n

umbe

rs o

f av

erag

e ‘b

ed n

ight

s’

Gre

ater

per

cap

ita

spen

d by

visi

tors


221

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

72 73 74 75 76

Dev

elop

a ‘W

HS

code

of

resp

ect’

for

visit

ors

to

the

WH

S to

enc

oura

ge b

ehav

iour

that

pro

tect

s th

e W

HS

and

redu

ces

impa

ct o

n th

e am

enity

of

its

resid

ents

. D

issem

inat

e an

d pr

omot

e th

e co

de

Seek

to w

ork

with

com

mer

cial

and

cha

ritab

le

orga

nisa

tions

and

oth

ers

to e

nsur

e th

at e

vent

s an

d ac

tiviti

es fu

lfil t

he W

HS

Visi

on a

nd h

ave

no a

dver

se

impa

ct o

n th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V, a

nd

the

amen

ity o

f th

e lo

cal c

omm

unity

Car

ry o

ut a

rev

iew

of

exist

ing

prov

ision

for

peop

le

with

disa

bilit

ies.

Id

entif

y op

port

uniti

es fo

r in

crea

sing

acce

ss fo

r di

s-ab

led

visit

ors

whe

re r

equi

red

with

out h

arm

ing

the

inte

grity

of

the

WH

S.

In a

rur

al la

ndsc

ape

this

is lik

ely

to in

clud

e vi

rtua

l ac

cess

. Im

prov

ing

acce

ss fo

r ha

rd to

rea

ch g

roup

s an

d no

n-at

tend

ees

shou

ld a

lso b

e ex

plor

ed

WH

S pa

rtne

rs to

enc

oura

ge th

e re

ason

able

pr

ovisi

on o

f pr

e-vi

sit in

form

atio

n in

maj

or la

ngua

ges.

Car

ry o

ut in

form

al r

evie

w to

con

sider

whe

ther

eq

ually

effe

ctiv

e an

d sa

fe y

et le

ss v

isual

ly in

trus

ive

alte

rnat

ives

to th

e ‘d

rape

s’ a

re a

vaila

ble

to p

reve

nt

eros

ion

on H

enge

ban

ks w

hilst

allo

win

g ac

cess

as

appr

opria

te

WH

SCU

T/P

C

NT

/EH

NT

/EH

EH/N

T

NT,

EH

, LO

, Pa

rish/

Tow

n C

ounc

ils

WH

SCU

, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

NT,

EH W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

W

HSC

U, N

E

WH

SCU

, V

W

WH

SCU

3/ 2017

2/

Ong

oing

2/ 2018

2/ 2017

3/ 2018

4c/8

6

5e

/123

4c/8

6

4c/8

3

5a

/99

5a

/99

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Visi

tors

und

erst

and

wha

t beh

avio

urs

wou

ld h

arm

the

WH

S an

d av

oid

them

Cod

e pr

omot

ed b

y al

l pa

rtne

rs

Even

ts a

nd a

ctiv

ities

ha

ve n

o ad

vers

e im

pact

s on

the

WH

S,

its O

UV

and

the

amen

ity o

f th

e lo

cal

com

mun

ity

Revi

ew c

ompl

eted

and

an

y id

entifi

ed n

eeds

ad

dres

sed

whe

re

reas

onab

ly p

ract

icab

le

Ade

quat

e pr

e-vi

sit

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e in

maj

or la

ngua

ges

Suita

bilit

y of

an

y ap

prop

riate

al

tern

ativ

es a

sses

sed

Ave

bu

ry


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

77 78 79

Iden

tify

and

supp

ort o

ppor

tuni

ties

acro

ss th

e V

isitW

iltsh

ire m

embe

rshi

p to

incr

ease

dw

ell t

ime

in

Wilt

shire

usin

g th

e W

HS

as a

cat

alys

t.

Wor

k w

ith V

isitW

iltsh

ire to

iden

tify

acco

mm

odat

ion

need

s of

visi

tors

to th

e W

HS

Enco

urag

e ac

com

mod

atio

n pr

ovisi

on th

at w

ill

allo

w fo

r lo

nger

sta

ys

Dev

elop

wid

er h

istor

ic it

iner

arie

s fo

r vi

sitor

s ba

sed

on th

e W

HS

to e

ncou

rage

long

er s

tays

in

Wilt

shire

Wor

k w

ith p

artn

ers

to id

entif

y ap

prop

riate

and

su

stai

nabl

e re

gene

ratio

n op

port

uniti

es th

at e

nhan

ce

the

WH

S an

d m

aint

ain

its O

UV

Thi

s co

uld

incl

ude

appr

entic

eshi

p an

d ot

her

skill

s de

velo

pmen

t opp

ortu

nitie

s su

ch a

s vo

lunt

eerin

g as

w

ell a

s in

itiat

ives

to e

nhan

ce r

ural

tour

ism a

nd th

e lo

cal f

ood

and

drin

k se

ctor

Stre

ngth

en p

artn

ersh

ips

with

Sal

isbur

y, W

iltsh

ire a

nd

Ale

xand

er K

eille

r M

useu

ms

and

the

Ston

ehen

ge

Visi

tor

Cen

tre

to in

crea

se in

com

e an

d pr

ovid

e be

nefit

s to

the

loca

l eco

nom

y

VW

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

EH/N

T/W

M/

SM

NW

DA

ON

BW

HSC

U

EH, N

T,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il,SM

,WM

, N

WD

AO

NB

EH, N

T, S

M,

WM

Paris

h an

d To

wn

Cou

ncils

, V

W, N

T, E

H,

LEP,

LN

P

VW

2/ 2015

3/ 2015

3/ 2017

2017

Ong

oing

2/ 2016

4b

/71

5b

/109

4a

/71

5b

/106

& 1

09

7a

/155

4a

/71

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Incr

ease

in o

vern

ight

st

ays

rela

ted

to th

e W

HS

Incr

ease

d be

d ni

ghts

Long

er s

tays

in

Wilt

shire

Itine

rarie

s av

aila

ble

to

visit

ors

thro

ugh

VW

an

d W

HS

web

sites

Link

s to

col

lege

s es

tabl

ished

App

rent

ices

hip

oppo

rtun

ities

id

entifi

ed a

s w

ell

as p

oten

tial f

or

spon

sors

hip

Long

-ter

m v

olun

teer

sc

hem

e fo

r N

NR

es

tabl

ished

by

NE

Act

ive

part

ners

hip

refle

cted

in c

ross

m

arke

ting,

eve

nts

and

lear

ning

opp

ortu

nitie

s V

isito

r nu

mbe

rs

incr

ease

d at

mus

eum

s

Polic

y 4b

– S

prea

d th

e ec

onom

ic be

nefit

s fro

m to

urism

rela

ted

to t

he W

HS

thro

ugho

ut t

he w

ider

com

mun

ity


223

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

80 81 82 83

Wor

k w

ith th

e A

mes

bury

Hist

ory

Cen

tre

and

othe

r sim

ilar

faci

litie

s to

rai

se a

war

enes

s of

the

WH

S an

d th

e w

ork

of it

s pa

rtne

rs

Revi

ew th

e ne

ed fo

r re

-est

ablis

hing

a to

urist

in

form

atio

n fa

cilit

y in

Ave

bury

and

Am

esbu

ry. I

n th

e in

terim

see

k op

port

uniti

es fo

r pr

ovid

ing

tour

ist

info

rmat

ion

loca

lly fo

llow

ing

the

clos

ure

of th

e T

ICs

with

in W

iltsh

ire

Mai

ntai

n po

licy

of p

erm

issiv

e op

en a

cces

s on

NT

la

nd r

ever

ted

to p

astu

re

Dev

elop

a W

HS

Land

scap

e A

cces

s St

rate

gy to

in

clud

e an

exa

min

atio

n of

the

curr

ent r

ight

s of

way

an

d cy

cle

path

net

wor

k an

d id

entif

y op

port

uniti

es fo

r en

hanc

emen

t in

line

with

the

Wilt

shire

Cou

ntry

side

Acc

ess

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

(CA

IP 2

014)

. Im

prov

e ro

utes

to th

e W

HS

for

the

loca

l com

mun

ity a

nd

visit

ors

stay

ing

in th

e su

rrou

ndin

g ar

ea. T

his

Stra

tegy

sh

ould

avo

id c

onfli

cts

with

hist

oric

and

eco

logi

cal

inte

rest

s an

d in

clud

e ne

cess

ary

impa

ct m

onito

ring

and

man

agem

ent r

egim

es

WH

SCU

Ave

bury

Par

ish

Cou

ncil

(APC

),A

mes

bury

TC

NT

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Am

esbu

ry

Tow

n C

ounc

il

VW

, Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, N

T,

WM

WH

SCU

, NT,

EH

, NE,

Par

ish

and

Tow

n C

ounc

ils, L

O,

RoW

use

r gr

oups

,LN

P, L

ocal

A

cces

s Fo

rum

, R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail,

N

IA

2/ 2018

3/ 2016

1/ Ong

oing

1/ 2017

4a

/71

–

4a

/71

& 7

4

4c/8

7 &

89

5a

/94

6c/1

46–7

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

N/A

N/A

Exist

ing

/ G

rant

Fun

ding

Incl

usio

n of

in

form

atio

n on

the

WH

S in

the

Am

esbu

ry

Hist

ory

Cen

tre

sche

me

Revi

ew c

arrie

d ou

t.O

ppor

tuni

ties

for

the

diss

emin

atio

n of

to

urist

info

rmat

ion

iden

tified

Stra

tegy

ado

pted

by

Wilt

shire

Cou

ncil,

LO

, Ro

W u

ser

grou

ps

HLS

/CSS

mon

itorin

g in

clud

es a

sses

smen

t of

impa

cts

from

acc

ess

Polic

y 4c

–En

cour

age

acce

ss a

nd c

ircul

atio

n to

key

arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ites

with

in t

he W

HS

land

scap

e. M

aint

ain

appr

opria

te a

rran

gem

ents

for

man

aged

op

en a

cces

s on

foot

(tak

ing

into

acc

ount

arc

haeo

logi

cal,

ecol

ogica

l and

com

mun

ity s

ensit

ivitie

s) to

incr

ease

pub

lic a

war

enes

s an

d en

joym

ent


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

84 85 86 87 88

Enco

urag

e gr

eate

r ex

plor

atio

n of

the

wid

er

land

scap

e by

visi

tors

and

loca

l com

mun

ity.

Prov

ide

WH

S sig

ns a

t key

disp

ersa

l poi

nts

in

coor

dina

tion

with

the

Aveb

ury

WH

S Tr

ansp

ort S

trate

gy

(201

5) a

nd S

tone

heng

e W

HS

Inte

rpre

tatio

n, L

earn

ing

and

Part

icipa

tion

Stra

tegy

(201

0) a

nd th

e A

vebu

ry

WH

S In

terp

reta

tion

and

Lear

ning

Fra

mew

ork

Enco

urag

e fit

ness

and

wel

lbei

ng in

itiat

ives

whi

ch

prov

ide

oppo

rtun

ities

for

visit

ors

to e

xplo

re th

e w

ider

WH

S

Iden

tify

and

wor

k w

ith o

rgan

isers

of

char

ity a

nd

othe

r ev

ents

to m

inim

ise im

pact

s on

the

WH

S an

d lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es. W

HSC

U to

con

tact

org

anisa

tions

to

rai

se a

war

enes

s of

the

sens

itivi

ties

and

nece

ssar

y co

nsen

ts

Expl

ore

car

park

ing

optio

ns fo

r th

ose

inte

ndin

g to

ex

plor

e th

e St

oneh

enge

land

scap

e w

ithou

t usin

g th

e V

isito

r C

entr

e

Rai

se a

war

enes

s of

car

par

king

faci

litie

s ac

ross

the

Ave

bury

WH

S

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

NT

NT

WH

SCU

, N

T, E

H, N

E,

Paris

h an

d To

wn

Cou

ncils

, N

WD

AO

NB,

R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail,

R

SPB,

VW

, N

IA

Get

Wilt

shire

W

alki

ng, N

T,

EH NT,

EH

, LO

, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail

EH, M

oD,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il,

Paris

h/To

wn

Cou

ncils

NE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, E

H,

Paris

h C

ounc

ils

2/ 2017

3/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

2/ 2016

2/ 2016

4c/8

5, 8

7 &

89

5a

/92

& 9

9

6a

/141

6c/1

46

4c/8

3

4a

/71,

72

& 7

3

5e

/123

4c/8

3 &

84

6c/1

46

6a

/141

Exist

ing

/ G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Visi

tors

aw

are

ofne

w fa

cilit

ies

Act

ion

plan

dev

elop

ed

to in

clud

e a

com

mu-

nica

tion

elem

ent t

o pr

omot

e ou

tcom

es

All

even

ts m

anag

ed

with

full

know

ledg

e of

la

nd m

anag

ers.

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e fo

r po

tent

ial

orga

nise

rs

Revi

ew c

arrie

d ou

t an

d an

y op

tions

id

entifi

ed a

nd a

ctio

n pl

an d

evel

oped

Ade

quat

e p

re-v

isit

info

rmat

ion

park

ing

optio

nsIn

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed

on a

rriv

al w

hen

car

park

full

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry


225

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

89 90 91

Impr

ove

sust

aina

ble

acce

ss to

the

arch

aeol

ogic

al

land

scap

e of

the

Fyfie

ld D

own

NN

R a

nd it

s lin

ks to

th

e re

st o

f th

e W

HS

Mon

itor

the

impa

cts

of o

pen

acce

ss a

nd r

espo

nd to

re

sults

to e

nsur

e th

e le

ast d

is-be

nefit

to th

e W

HS

and

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV.

Thi

s is

espe

cial

ly r

elev

ant

whe

re n

umbe

rs h

ave

incr

ease

d ov

er th

e lif

e of

the

Plan

suc

h as

at W

inte

r So

lstic

e

Con

tinue

pro

activ

e an

d in

clus

ive

man

agem

ent o

f so

lstic

e an

d pa

gan

obse

rvan

ces

NE

EH/N

T

EH/N

T

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

ASA

HRG

, R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rails

N

WD

AO

NB

NE

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, P

olic

e,

Paris

h an

d To

wn

Cou

ncils

, Ro

und

Tabl

e (R

T),

Sacr

ed

Site

s Fo

rum

(S

SF)

2/ 2016

1/ Ong

oing

1/ Ong

oing

4c/8

3 &

84

5a

/94

& 9

9

4a

/70

5c/1

14

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Info

rmat

ion

on a

cces

s an

d in

terp

reta

tion

avai

labl

e on

arc

hae-

olog

ical

and

nat

ural

im

port

ance

of

Fyfie

ld

Dow

n

Impa

cts

mon

itore

d an

d ap

prop

riate

m

itiga

ting

or

prev

entiv

e ac

tions

un

dert

aken

Succ

essf

ul c

eleb

ratio

nsLo

w a

rres

tsC

ontin

ued

Roun

d Ta

ble

and

Ave

bury

Sa

cred

Site

s Fo

rum

m

eetin

gs

Polic

y 4d

– M

anag

e sp

ecia

l acc

ess

at S

tone

heng

e fo

r sig

nific

ant o

ccas

ions

incl

udin

g so

lstice

s, a

nd fo

r st

one

circ

le a

cces

s ou

tsid

e op

enin

g ho

urs

for

smal

l gro

ups

an

d al

l ope

n ac

cess

at A

vebu

ry to

avo

id h

arm

to t

he W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of O

UV


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

92 93 94

Agr

ee o

vera

rchi

ng p

rinci

ples

for

pane

ls an

d te

xt

thro

ugho

ut th

e W

HS.

Par

tner

s pr

ovid

e an

inte

grat

ed

and

cohe

rent

mes

sage

and

iden

tity

acro

ss b

oth

part

s of

the

WH

S al

ongs

ide

part

ners

’ ow

n bu

ildin

g on

the

SILP

S

Expl

ore

oppo

rtun

ities

for

inte

rpre

ting

the

linka

ges

betw

een

the

hist

oric

and

nat

ural

her

itage

in th

e up

date

d SI

LPS

and

the

Ave

bury

Inte

rpre

tatio

n an

d Le

arni

ng F

ram

ewor

k

Revi

ew o

ppor

tuni

ties

to e

xpan

d di

gita

l int

erpr

etat

ion

for

the

WH

S la

ndsc

ape

in li

ne w

ith th

e SI

LPS

and

AIL

F

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

NT

NT,

EH

, NE,

R

SPB,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

N

WD

AO

NB

WA

NH

S, N

E,

RSP

B, W

WT,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil.

N

WD

AO

NB,

N

T, E

H

EH, N

E

1/ 2016

2/ 2017

2/ 2018

4c/8

4

5b

/112

5e

/124

–5 &

12

7

3h

/60

4c/8

3

5a

/99

N/A

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Gra

nt/

priv

ate

sect

or

fund

ing

Tho

se d

ocum

ents

in

clud

e ac

tions

to

com

mun

icat

e lin

kage

s be

twee

n na

tura

l and

hi

stor

ic e

nviro

nmen

ts

Dig

ital i

nter

pret

atio

n pr

oduc

ed fo

r W

HS/

NN

R w

here

app

ro-

pria

te

Inte

rpre

tati

on

, E

du

cati

on

an

d C

om

mu

nit

y E

ngage

me

nt

Aim

5: Im

pro

ve t

he

in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f th

e W

HS

to

in

cre

ase

un

de

rsta

nd

ing a

nd

en

joym

en

t o

f it

s sp

ecia

l ch

ara

cte

rist

ics

an

d

max

imis

e its

ed

ucati

on

al p

ote

nti

al. E

ngage

th

e lo

cal co

mm

un

ity in

th

e s

tew

ard

ship

an

d m

an

age

me

nt

of

the

WH

S.

Polic

y 5a

– Im

prov

e th

e in

terp

reta

tion

both

on

and

off s

ite to

enh

ance

enj

oym

ent a

nd a

ppre

ciat

ion

of t

he W

HS


227

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

95 96 97 98

Dev

elop

a p

rogr

amm

e of

trai

ning

/fa

mili

arisa

tion

visit

s/am

bass

ador

sch

eme

for

VW

and

‘Our

Lan

d’

part

ners

incl

udin

g gu

ides

and

bus

ines

ses

Revi

ew th

e pr

ovisi

on o

f on

-site

info

rmat

ion

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n fo

r no

n-En

glish

spe

aker

s

Expl

ore

with

EH

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r m

akin

g us

e of

th

e sp

ecia

l exh

ibiti

on s

pace

at t

he V

isito

r C

entr

e to

en

hanc

e un

ders

tand

ing,

enj

oym

ent a

nd a

ppre

ciat

ion

of th

e W

HS

and

its s

ettin

g an

d lin

ks to

oth

er W

HSs

Revi

ew o

rigin

al a

ims

of th

e SI

LPS

to e

nsur

e th

ey

have

all

been

del

iver

ed a

nd e

xplo

re o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

expa

ndin

g in

terp

reta

tion

of th

e St

oneh

enge

WH

S an

d in

par

ticul

ar th

e so

uthe

rn p

art w

here

land

is

in p

riva

te o

wne

rshi

p. R

evie

w in

terp

reta

tion

acro

ss

the

WH

S on

ce la

ndsc

apin

g w

orks

at S

tone

heng

e co

mpl

eted

. Rev

iew

the

signa

ge a

nd w

ay-m

arki

ng

elem

ents

rel

ated

to P

olic

y 4c

VW

EH/N

T

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

, EH

, N

T,

NW

DA

ON

B

WH

SCU

, NE,

V

W

EH LO, E

H,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il. R

SPB,

N

T, N

E

3/ 2016

2/ 2016

2/ 2016

3/ 2018

5e

/123

5a

/99

5b

/111

5b

/111

7c/1

67

5b

/111

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Fam

iliar

isatio

n tr

ips

held

and

trai

ning

s se

ssio

ns c

ompl

eted

Ston

ehen

ge

Inte

rpre

tatio

n St

rate

gy/A

vebu

ry

Fram

ewor

k in

clud

e ac

tions

to a

ddre

ss

non-

Engl

ish s

peak

er

need

s

WH

S-ba

sed

exhi

bitio

n he

ld

Sto

ne

he

nge


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

99 100

101

102

103

Dev

elop

a W

HS

Inte

rpre

tatio

n an

d Le

arni

ng

Fram

ewor

k fo

r A

vebu

ry

The

Fra

mew

ork

shou

ld c

onsid

er p

rovi

sion

for

im-

prov

ed ‘v

isibi

lity’

of

belo

w g

roun

d ar

chae

olog

y an

d th

e fe

asib

ility

of

upda

ting

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

the

Sanc

tuar

y an

d ag

ree

appr

opria

te a

ctio

ns to

impr

ove

Dev

elop

inte

rpre

tatio

n, o

utre

ach

and

com

mun

ity

enga

gem

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

at F

yfiel

d D

own

in li

ne

with

the

deve

lopi

ng A

vebu

ry In

terp

reta

tion

and

Lear

ning

Fra

mew

ork

Expl

ore

poss

ibili

ty o

f de

velo

ping

pro

ject

to r

edisp

lay

the

two

publ

ic g

alle

ries

of th

e A

lexa

nder

Kei

ller

Mus

eum

Dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t pro

ject

to r

edisp

lay

the

two

publ

ic g

alle

ries

of th

e A

lexa

nder

Kei

ller

Mus

eum

Incr

ease

dig

ital a

cces

s to

Ale

xand

er K

eille

r M

useu

m

colle

ctio

ns a

nd a

rchi

ves

to e

nhan

ce e

duca

tion

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

the

WH

S

NT

NE

NT

NT

NT

EH, N

E, H

E,

NW

DA

ON

B,

ASA

HRG

, SA

LOG

, RSP

B

WH

SCU

, NT,

A

SAH

RG

AK

M A

dviso

ry

Boar

d

(incl

udes

EH

as

a re

quire

men

t)

AK

M A

dviso

ry

Boar

d (in

clud

es

EH a

s a

requ

irem

ent)

EH

1/ 2017

2/ 2017

1/ 2016

2/ 2020

2/ 2020

3e

/50

5a

/92,

96

&

100

5b

/104

,–05

&

112–

13

5d

/121

–2

5f/

130

5a

/99

5c/1

16

5a

/99

7b

/157

–

7b

/157

Exist

ing

/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Ave

bury

WH

S In

terp

reta

tion

and

Lear

ning

Fra

mew

ork

com

plet

ed a

nd a

pr

ogra

mm

e of

wor

ks

prod

uced

Proj

ect s

cope

d

New

disp

lays

inst

alle

d

Col

lect

ion

avai

labl

e on

line

Ave

bu

ry


229

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

104

105

106

Dev

elop

Sto

nehe

nge

and

Ave

bury

Lea

rnin

g an

d O

utre

ach

Gro

up (S

ALO

G) t

o as

sist i

n pa

rtne

rshi

p w

orki

ng a

cros

s th

e W

HS

Con

duct

a s

urve

y of

the

vario

us e

duca

tion

grou

ps

usin

g th

e W

HS

to u

nder

stan

d th

e ne

eds

of d

iffer

ent

grou

ps a

t all

leve

ls of

edu

catio

n an

d to

info

rm

lear

ning

str

ateg

ies

for

Ave

bury

and

Sto

nehe

nge

Iden

tify

oppo

rtun

ities

for

wor

king

with

loca

l far

mer

s to

pro

vide

out

door

edu

catio

nal f

acili

ties

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

NE

NT,

EH

, WA

, W

M, S

M, N

E

EH, N

T, N

E,

SM, W

M

NT,

EH

, WM

, SM

, ASA

HRG

, SA

LON

G,

NW

DA

ON

B

2/ 2015

2/ 2016

3/ 2017

5a

/99

5b

/111

, 112

, 11

3

5a

/99

5b

/111

& 1

12

3f/

54

4b

/73

& 78

5a

/99

5b

/109

5b

/111

& 1

125

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

SALO

G m

eets

re

gula

rly,

del

iver

s le

arni

ng a

nd o

utre

ach

bene

fits

acro

ss th

e W

HS

Und

erst

and

how

W

HS

is cu

rren

tly

used

by

a ra

nge

of

educ

atio

nal g

roup

s an

d fu

rthe

r ne

eds

and

oppo

rtun

ities

fo

r de

velo

pmen

t

Out

door

edu

catio

n fa

cilit

ies

iden

tified

for

both

Sto

nehe

nge

and

Ave

bury

Polic

y 5b

– D

evel

op le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

offer

ed b

y th

e W

HS

both

on

and

off s

ite


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

107

108

109

110

111

112

Coo

rdin

ate

exist

ing

and

esta

blish

new

link

s

with

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s

Dev

elop

exi

stin

g an

d es

tabl

ish n

ew li

nks

with

un

iver

sitie

s an

d te

rtia

ry e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

offer

ing

WH

S, h

erita

ge a

nd a

rcha

eolo

gica

l cou

rses

. C

ontin

ue to

offe

r pl

acem

ents

to a

ppro

pria

te

stud

ents

Und

erta

ke a

nee

ds a

naly

sis o

f re

quire

men

t for

a

resid

entia

l fiel

d/ed

ucat

ion

cent

re. C

onsid

er

re-u

se o

f ex

istin

g bu

ildin

gs w

ithin

the

WH

S or

w

ithin

eas

y re

ach

Offe

r pr

esen

tatio

ns a

nd p

ublic

atio

ns o

n th

e

WH

S its

att

ribut

es o

f O

UV

and

thei

r m

anag

emen

t fo

r a

loca

l, na

tiona

l and

inte

rnat

iona

l aud

ienc

e

Revi

ew im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e St

oneh

enge

WH

S In

terp

reta

tion,

Lea

rnin

g an

d Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Stra

tegy

.C

ompl

ete

any

outs

tand

ing

actio

ns u

sing

St

oneh

enge

and

Ave

bury

Lea

rnin

g an

d O

utre

ach

Gro

up (S

ALO

G n

etw

ork)

Expl

ore

lear

ning

opp

ortu

nitie

s as

par

t of

the

Ave

bury

WH

S In

terp

reta

tion

and

Lear

ning

Fr

amew

ork

incl

udin

g de

velo

ping

edu

catio

nal

pote

ntia

l and

link

s w

ith S

tone

heng

e

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

NT

SALO

G,

ASA

HRG

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

N

WD

AO

NB

ASA

HRG

, N

WD

AO

NB

EH, N

E, N

T,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, L

EP,

LNP

NT,

EH

, HE,

N

E, A

SAH

RG,

NW

DA

ON

B

EH, N

T, W

M,

SM, S

ALO

G

EH, N

E,

SALO

G, L

O,

WH

SCU

2/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

3/ 2020

2/ Ong

oing

2/ 2017

1/ 2017

5b

/111

& 1

12

5f/

131

7a

/153

& 1

55

4b

/74

& 7

8

5f/

130

5e

/123

5a

/96-

8

5b

/105

5a

/99

5b

/104

& 1

05

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Incr

ease

d up

take

by

scho

ols

that

hav

e no

t pr

evio

usly

eng

aged

w

ith W

HS

part

ners

off

erin

g ed

ucat

iona

l op

port

uniti

es

Incr

ease

d pr

esen

tatio

ns, v

isits

an

d pl

acem

ents

Nee

ds a

naly

sis

com

plet

ed

WH

S pr

esen

tatio

n/ev

ent f

or c

omm

unity

an

nual

ly

Revi

ew c

arrie

d ou

t an

d ou

tsta

ndin

g ac

tions

com

plet

ed

Lear

ning

pla

n de

velo

ped

as p

art o

f th

e A

vebu

ry W

HS

Inte

rpre

tatio

n an

d Le

arni

ng F

ram

ewor

k

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry


231

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

113

114

115

116

Dev

elop

edu

catio

nal r

esou

rces

bas

ed o

n th

e W

HS

‘Ave

nue

to L

earn

ing’

Pro

ject

Wor

k w

ith th

e lo

cal c

omm

unity

to u

nder

stan

d ho

w th

ey w

ould

mos

t lik

e to

be

invo

lved

with

the

man

agem

ent o

f th

e W

HS,

the

upda

ting

of th

e M

anag

emen

t Pla

n an

d w

here

app

ropr

iate

res

earc

h.

Mak

e av

aila

ble

WH

S m

inut

es a

nd r

epor

ts o

n th

e W

HS

web

site

Rese

arch

opt

ions

for

a co

mm

unity

eve

nt to

ce

lebr

ate

the

WH

S

Dev

elop

vol

unte

erin

g op

port

uniti

es fo

r

part

icip

atio

n in

the

man

agem

ent o

f th

e W

HS.

In

tegr

ate

volu

ntee

r in

volv

emen

t in

the

deliv

ery

of

the

Man

agem

ent P

lan

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te

ASA

HRG

/ SA

LOG

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

NT,

HE,

W

HSC

U

Paris

h/To

wn

Cou

ncils

,Lo

cal a

men

ity

grou

ps

NT,

EH

, NE,

Pa

rish/

Tow

n C

ounc

ils,

NW

DA

ON

B

NT,

EH

, SM

, W

M, N

E

2/ 2017

1/ Ong

oing

2/ 2015

1/ Ong

oing

5a

/99

1d

/10

4d

/91

5e

/ 12

3

7c/1

65 &

168

5e

/123

7c/1

66

6a

/137

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Sust

aina

ble

reso

urce

av

aila

ble

to s

choo

ls

Und

erst

and

how

the

com

mun

ity w

ould

m

ost l

ike

be in

volv

ed

in th

e m

anag

emen

t of

the

WH

S.

Min

utes

on

the

web

afte

r th

ey h

ave

been

app

rove

d Im

prov

ed c

omm

unity

un

ders

tand

ing

and

enga

gem

ent w

ith W

HS

Regu

lar

even

t ce

lebr

atin

g th

e

WH

S he

ld in

bot

h pa

rts

of th

e W

HS

Task

and

fini

sh

grou

p co

nsid

erin

g vo

lunt

eerin

g op

port

uniti

es in

all

proj

ects

. A

nnua

l Sto

nehe

nge

and

Ave

bury

vo

lunt

eerin

g ev

ent.

Trai

ning

pac

ks fo

r in

duct

ion

of n

ew

volu

ntee

rs

Polic

y 5c

– P

rom

ote

com

mun

ity in

volve

men

t in

the

WH

S to

incr

ease

a s

ense

of o

wne

rshi

p


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

117

118

119

120

121

Dev

elop

ora

l hist

ory

proj

ect f

or th

e W

HS

to

enc

oura

ge c

omm

unity

eng

agem

ent

Expl

ore

oppo

rtun

ities

for

deliv

ery

of a

WH

S Re

siden

ts’ P

ack

at S

tone

heng

e in

the

mos

t ap

prop

riate

form

at.

Allo

w r

e-ba

sed

com

mun

ity to

dev

elop

in

adva

nce

of th

is.C

onsid

er a

ppro

pria

te ti

min

g fo

r up

date

of

the

Ave

bury

Pac

k

Sto

ne

he

nge

Mai

ntai

n fr

ee e

ntry

to S

tone

heng

e V

isito

r C

entr

e

and

Ston

es fo

r lo

cal r

esid

ents

Expl

ore

way

s th

at th

e co

mm

unity

can

use

th

e ed

ucat

ion

room

at t

he S

tone

heng

e V

isito

r

Cen

tre

as a

com

mun

ity r

esou

rce

Dev

elop

an

Art

s Fr

amew

ork

artic

ulat

ing

the

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV

of

the

WH

S an

d th

e po

tent

ial f

or

thei

r ar

tistic

exp

ress

ion

NT

WH

SCU

EH EH Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

HE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, Pa

rish/

To

wn

Cou

ncils

All

part

ners

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

, W

HSP

P, V

W,

NE,

EH

, NT,

SM

, WM

3/ 2017

2/ 2018

1/ Ong

oing

2/ 2015

2/ 2015

7c/1

65

7d

/ 16

9

1d

/10

3a

/ 21

3f/

54

5c/1

15

–

–

5a

/99

5b

/A

ctio

n 11

1

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Ora

l arc

hive

de

velo

ped

and

acce

ssib

le to

the

publ

ic

Publ

ished

boo

klet

Web

con

tent

Con

tinue

d pr

ovisi

on

of lo

cal r

esid

ent

pass

es

Use

of

educ

atio

n ro

om fo

r co

mm

unity

ac

tiviti

es o

utsid

e

peak

per

iods

Del

iver

at l

east

one

ev

ent a

nnua

lly w

hich

re

late

s to

the

OU

V

of th

e sit

e

Polic

y 5d

– A

rtist

s an

d th

e cr

eativ

e se

ctor

will

offer

new

and

insp

iring

way

s fo

r co

mm

uniti

es a

nd a

wid

er ra

nge

of v

isito

rs to

eng

age

with

and

lear

n

abou

t the

OU

V of

the

WH

S an

d th

e w

ide

rang

e of

art

istic

resp

onse

s to

it b

oth

past

and

pre

sent

.


233

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

122

123

124

125

Del

iver

an

artis

ts’ s

ympo

sium

exp

lorin

g th

e

them

es r

elat

ed to

the

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV

in

clud

ing

the

shap

ing

of th

e W

HS

land

scap

e

Prod

uce

a W

HS

Com

mun

icat

ions

Str

ateg

y

defin

ing

the

mes

sage

, aud

ienc

es a

nd m

eans

of

com

mun

icat

ion

Dev

elop

a b

rand

ing

and

signa

ge s

trat

egy

fo

r th

e w

hole

WH

S

Revi

ew W

HS

gate

way

sig

nage

and

ens

ure

fu

ndin

g fo

r th

eir

re-d

esig

n, r

epla

cem

ent

and

/or

mai

nten

ance

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

, W

HSP

P, V

W

WH

SPP,

NT,

EH

, HE

WH

SPP,

EH

, N

T, N

E, R

SPB,

N

WD

AO

NB,

R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail

WH

SCU

,H

A

2/ 2015

1/ 2015

2/ 2016

1/ 2015

5a

/99

5b

/111

7d

/169

3f/

54

4a

/69

& 7

2

5b

/110

5c/1

14

4a

/71

5a

/92

5e

/123

, 125

&

127

6a

/136

5a

/92

5e

/124

& 1

27

6a

/136

Exist

ing

/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Sym

posiu

m h

eld.

A p

lan

for

crea

tive

sect

or w

orki

ng w

ithin

W

HS

deve

lope

d

A s

trat

egy

whi

ch

assis

ts in

impr

ovin

g co

mm

unic

atio

ns w

ith

all k

ey ta

rget

gro

up

Cle

ar a

nd c

onsis

tent

vi

sual

iden

tity

and

mes

sage

acr

oss

both

pa

rts

of th

e W

HS

alon

gsid

e pa

rtne

rs

own

bran

d

Gat

eway

sig

ns in

pla

ceBo

unda

ry c

lear

to

visit

ors

and

awar

e it

is a

spec

ial l

ands

cape

Polic

y 5e

– P

rese

nt a

uni

fied

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd A

vebu

ry W

HS

iden

tity

and

mes

sage


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

126

127

128

129

Con

tinue

to p

rodu

ce th

e W

HS

Meg

alith

ne

wsle

tter

to r

aise

the

profi

le o

f th

e W

HS

and

th

e w

ork

of it

s pa

rtne

rs

Loca

te a

WH

S pl

aque

at b

oth

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd

Ave

bury

in a

gree

men

t with

par

tner

s to

mar

k th

e W

HS

insc

riptio

n to

mee

t UN

ESC

O r

equi

rem

ents

Dev

elop

the

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd A

vebu

ry

WH

S w

ebsit

e

Esta

blish

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

WH

S st

atus

in e

xist

ing

faci

litie

s in

clud

ing

mus

eum

s.

Trai

n st

aff w

here

app

ropr

iate

to p

rovi

de in

form

atio

n on

the

WH

S st

atus

and

oth

er n

atio

nal a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l WH

Ss

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

All

part

ners

EH, N

T,

WH

SPP

WH

SPP

2/ Ong

oing

1/ 2016

1/ Ong

oing

2/ 2018

5e

/123

4d

/92

5e

/124

5e

/123

7c/1

64

5e

/123

Exist

ing/

pr

ivat

e se

ctor

fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Prod

uce

Meg

alith

ne

wsle

tter

ann

ually

Suita

ble

plaq

ue

follo

win

g U

NES

CO

gu

idel

ines

pla

ced

at

mai

n vi

sitor

faci

lity

at

bot

h St

oneh

enge

an

d A

vebu

ry

Up

to d

ate

cont

ent

and

info

rmat

ion

and

good

link

s to

key

pa

rtne

rs.

Hig

h ‘G

oogl

e’ r

anki

ngIn

crea

sed

leve

l of

usag

e as

mea

sure

d by

G

oogl

e an

alyt

ics

Gat

eway

poi

nts

in

key

com

mun

ities

suc

h as

Dev

izes

, Cal

ne,

Am

esbu

ry, S

win

don,

M

arlb

orou

gh,

Salis

bury

, Lar

khill

Polic

y 5f

– E

xplo

re a

nd d

elive

r op

port

uniti

es to

mee

t the

wid

er o

bjec

tives

of U

NES

CO a

nd t

he U

K G

over

nmen

t


235

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

130

131

132

Expl

ore

feas

ibilit

y of

est

ablis

hing

a c

entr

e to

in

terp

ret W

HS

stat

us a

nd it

s lo

cal,

natio

nal a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l rel

evan

ce.

Con

sider

pos

sible

stu

dy c

entr

e. Im

plem

ent i

f fea

sible

. C

onsid

er A

vebu

ry C

hape

l and

/or

Am

esbu

ry H

istor

y C

entr

e as

a lo

catio

n if

avai

labl

e

Dev

elop

link

s w

ith U

K a

nd in

tern

atio

nal W

HSs

to

shar

e be

st p

ract

ice.

D

evel

op r

ecip

roca

l pro

fess

iona

l rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ith

WH

Ss th

at h

ave

simila

r at

trib

utes

of

OU

V a

nd

man

agem

ent c

halle

nges

Revi

ew tr

igge

r cr

iteria

for

whe

n de

velo

pmen

t-re

late

d tr

ansp

ort a

sses

smen

ts w

ithin

the

WH

S sh

ould

be

prod

uced

WH

SPP

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

, NT,

Pa

rish/

Tow

n C

ounc

ils

WH

SPP,

D

CM

S,

UN

ESC

O U

K

Com

miss

ion,

IC

OM

OS-

UK

,W

H:U

K

WH

SCU

1/ 2018

2/ Ong

oing

2020

2/ 2016

5a

/99

5b

/109

5e

/123

5b

/108

7a

/153

1b

/4

Gra

nt/

priv

ate

sect

or

fund

ing

Gra

nt/

priv

ate

sect

or

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Feas

ibili

ty s

tudy

co

mpl

eted

and

ac

tion

plan

bas

ed o

n re

com

men

datio

ns

deve

lope

d

Best

pra

ctic

e pu

blic

atio

nPr

esen

tatio

ns a

nd

pape

rs

Crit

eria

und

erst

ood

and

impl

emen

ted

by

Hig

hway

s

Aim

6: R

ed

uce

sig

nifi

can

tly t

he

ne

gati

ve im

pacts

of

road

s an

d t

raffi

c o

n t

he

WH

S a

nd

its

att

rib

ute

s o

f O

UV

an

d in

cre

ase

sust

ain

ab

le a

cce

ss t

o t

he

WH

S

Polic

y 6a

– Id

entif

y an

d im

plem

ent m

easu

res

to re

duce

the

neg

ative

impa

cts

of ro

ads,

traffi

c an

d pa

rkin

g on

the

WH

S an

d to

impr

ove

road

saf

ety

and

the

ease

and

con

fiden

ce w

ith w

hich

resid

ents

and

visi

tors

can

exp

lore

the

WH

S

Su

stain

ab

le T

raffi

c M

an

age

me

nt

an

d T

ran

spo

rtati

on


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

133

134

135

136

137

Seek

a s

olut

ion

to th

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

of

the

A30

3 on

the

WH

S, it

s at

trib

utes

of

OU

V a

nd it

s se

ttin

g in

ord

er to

sus

tain

its

OU

V a

nd e

nhan

ce th

e Si

te’s

inte

grity

. W

ork

with

par

tner

s to

iden

tify

such

a s

olut

ion

that

al

so a

ddre

sses

cur

rent

and

pre

dict

ed tr

affic

prob

lem

s an

d as

sists

in d

eliv

ery

of s

ocia

l and

eco

nom

ic g

row

th

Revi

ew th

e cu

rren

t acc

ess

to a

nd w

ithin

the

WH

S an

d as

soci

ated

A30

3 cr

ossin

g po

ints

for

non-

mot

orise

d us

ers

with

the

aim

of

impr

ovin

g ac

cess

ibili

ty

Mon

itor

how

the

new

Visi

tor

Cen

tre

park

ing

prov

ision

and

clo

sure

of

the

A34

4 im

pact

s on

traffi

c,

the

loca

l com

mun

ity a

nd v

isito

rs.

Add

ress

any

iden

tified

neg

ativ

e im

pact

s

Adh

ere

to th

e D

esig

n Pr

inci

ples

incl

uded

in th

e Av

ebur

y W

HS

Tran

spor

t Stra

tegy

for

all

Hig

hway

s in

terv

entio

ns w

ithin

the

Ave

bury

W

HS

and

its s

ettin

g in

clud

ing

road

sig

nage

Revi

ew p

ossib

le a

pplic

atio

n in

Sto

nehe

nge

WH

S

Und

erta

ke a

com

mun

ity c

onse

rvat

ion

area

s

audi

t to

help

info

rm T

rans

port

Str

ateg

y in

terv

entio

ns

HA

HA

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

WH

SCU

DfT

, DC

MS,

H

M T

reas

ury,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

HE,

EH

, NT

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, H

E,

EH, N

T

EH, N

T

WH

SCU

, HE,

N

WD

AO

NB

Paris

h/To

wn

Cou

ncils

, H

E, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

1/ 2

015

- 20

20O

ngoi

ng

2/ 2

015

- 20

20O

n-go

ing

2/ 2016

1/ Ong

oing

3/ 2016

3c/3

5

6a

/134

& 1

35

6a

/133

3c/3

5

3c/3

5

5e

/124

& 1

25

6a

/137

–42

5c/1

16

6a

/136

Cen

tral

G

over

nmen

t /

Trea

sury

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Visu

al a

nd n

oise

in

trus

ion

of r

oad

and

traffi

c is

dim

inish

ed

Inte

grity

of

the

W

HS

enha

nced

Visi

tors

abl

e to

acc

ess

the

wid

er la

ndsc

ape

with

eas

e

Acc

urat

e ev

iden

ce

avai

labl

e to

info

rm a

ny

requ

ired

solu

tions

Unn

eces

sary

hig

hway

s in

terv

entio

ns a

void

ed

Hig

hway

s-re

late

d cl

utte

r re

duce

d

Sens

itive

des

ign

and

mat

eria

ls us

ed in

all

inte

rven

tion

Resu

lts o

f au

dits

av

aila

ble

to in

form

in

terv

entio

ns in

C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

as

as r

equi

red

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry


237

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

138

139

140

141

Revi

ew, d

evel

op a

nd c

onsu

lt on

mea

sure

s fo

r

the

B400

3 id

entifi

ed in

the

Aveb

ury

WH

S

Tran

spor

t Stra

tegy

to p

reve

nt d

amag

e fr

om

traffi

c to

the

Wes

t Ken

net A

venu

e an

d fa

cilit

ate

m

ovem

ent o

f vi

sitor

s w

ithin

the

WH

S.

Impl

emen

t agr

eed

outc

omes

Revi

ew, d

evel

op a

nd c

onsu

lt on

mea

sure

s

iden

tified

to r

educ

e th

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

of

the

A4

on th

e W

HS,

its

attr

ibut

es o

f O

UV

and

visi

tor

mov

emen

t. Im

plem

ent a

gree

d ou

tcom

es

Whe

re p

ossib

le p

rovi

de s

afe

cros

sing

poin

ts

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e W

HS

Des

ign

Prin

cipl

es

for

visit

ors

both

in th

e H

enge

and

bet

wee

n ke

y m

onum

ents

in th

e W

HS

Redu

ce p

arki

ng c

onge

stio

n in

the

Hen

ge/v

illag

e ar

ea o

n pe

ak d

ays.

Disp

erse

pre

ssur

e aw

ay fr

om

the

cent

re o

f th

e W

HS.

Enf

orce

exi

stin

g pa

rkin

g re

stric

tions

in th

e H

igh

Stre

et. I

mpl

emen

t new

re

stric

tions

whe

re n

eces

sary

as

outli

ned

in th

e Av

ebur

y W

HS

Tran

spor

t Stra

tegy

. (a

dher

e to

sav

ed p

olic

y T

R9

in W

iltsh

ire C

ore

Stra

tegy

on

car

park

ing

in A

vebu

ry)

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

APC

, HE,

NT,

NW

DA

ON

B

APC

, HE,

NT,

N

WD

AO

NB

NT,

EH

, HE,

N

WD

AO

NB

NT,

APC

1/ 2018

2/ 2018

2/ 2018

1/ 2016

3c/3

7

3c/3

9–40

6a

/136

& 1

42

3c/3

9–40

6a

/136

& 1

42

4a

/70

4a

/71

4c/8

3 &

88

Exist

ing

/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Agr

eed

mea

sure

s im

plem

ente

d

No

furt

her

dam

age

to

arch

aeol

ogy

Visi

tors

circ

ulat

ew

ith in

crea

sed

confi

denc

e/sa

fety

Visi

tor

surv

eys

repo

rtim

prov

ed e

xper

ienc

e

Agr

eed

mea

sure

s im

plem

ente

d

Visi

tors

cro

ss r

oads

with

incr

ease

dco

nfide

nce/

safe

tyin

the

Hen

ge a

ndbe

twee

n ke

y m

onu-

men

tsV

isito

r su

rvey

s re

port

impr

oved

exp

erie

nce

Redu

ctio

n in

co

nges

tion

in H

igh

and

Gre

en S

tree

t


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

142

143

144

145

Iden

tify

oppo

rtun

ities

for

impl

emen

ting

re

mai

ning

rec

omm

enda

tions

of

the

Aveb

ury

W

HS

Tran

spor

t Stra

tegy

Mon

itor

the

use

of b

yway

s op

en to

all

traffi

c (B

OA

TS)

and

see

k ap

prop

riate

traffi

c m

anag

emen

t in

terv

entio

ns w

here

veh

icul

ar a

cces

s da

mag

es

arch

aeol

ogy,

dim

inish

es s

afet

y, im

pede

s or

di

scou

rage

s m

ovem

ent a

nd/o

r im

pact

s ad

vers

ely

on

the

sett

ing

incl

udin

g By

way

12

at S

tone

heng

e an

d th

e R

idge

way

Nat

iona

l Tra

il at

Ave

bury

Agr

ee a

ppro

pria

te p

roto

cols

for

surf

ace

mai

nten

ance

an

d re

pair

on p

ublic

rig

hts

of w

ay w

ithin

the

WH

S

Prom

ote

curr

ent s

usta

inab

le tr

ansp

ort o

ptio

ns

for

trav

el to

the

WH

S an

d in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

prio

r to

visi

t. A

gree

and

coo

rdin

ate

mes

sage

w

ith W

HS

part

ners

. Inc

lude

link

s to

the

C

onne

ctin

g W

iltsh

ire w

ebsit

e

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NT,

APC

, N

WD

AO

NB,

H

E

EH, R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail,

N

T

NT,

HE,

R

idge

way

N

atio

nal T

rail

NT,

EH

, N

E, R

SPB,

N

WD

AO

NB,

VW

2/ 2020

1/ 2020

2/ 2017

1/ 2015

–

3a

/18,

23

& 2

5

6b

/144

3a

/ 24

& 2

5

6b

/143

5e/1

23

6c/1

46

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Reco

mm

enda

tions

of

Tra

nspo

rt S

trate

gy

com

plet

ed

Dam

age

to

arch

aeol

ogy

on

byw

ays

halte

d

Visi

tors

rep

ort

impr

oved

exp

erie

nce

App

ropr

iate

pro

toco

ls fo

r re

surf

acin

g of

pu

blic

rig

hts

of w

ay

agre

ed

Incr

ease

in p

erce

ntag

e us

ing

sust

aina

ble

tran

spor

t opt

ions

All

part

ners

pro

mot

e no

n-ca

r op

tions

in

rele

vant

mar

ketin

g

Polic

y 6b

– M

anag

e ve

hicu

lar

acce

ss to

byw

ays

with

in t

he W

orld

Her

itage

Site

to a

void

dam

age

to a

rcha

eolo

gy, i

mpr

ove

safe

ty a

nd e

ncou

rage

exp

lora

tion

of t

he la

ndsc

ape

on fo

ot

whi

lst m

aint

aini

ng a

cces

s fo

r em

erge

ncy,

oper

atio

nal a

nd fa

rm v

ehic

les

and

land

owne

rs

Polic

y 6c

– T

ake

mea

sure

s th

roug

h su

stai

nabl

e tr

ansp

ort p

lann

ing

to e

ncou

rage

acc

ess

to t

he W

HS

othe

r th

an b

y ca

r


239

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

146

147

148

149

Dev

elop

a S

usta

inab

le T

rans

port

Str

ateg

y fo

r th

e W

HS

to r

educ

e pa

rkin

g pr

essu

re a

nd d

eliv

er

envi

ronm

enta

l ben

efits

:

a. In

clud

e m

easu

res

to im

prov

e lin

ks b

etw

een

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd A

vebu

ry a

s pa

rt o

f th

e Su

stai

nabl

e Tr

ansp

ort S

trat

egy

b.

Und

erta

ke m

arke

t res

earc

h to

rev

iew

feas

ibili

ty

of a

com

mer

cial

bus

ser

vice

link

ing

Ston

ehen

ge

and

Ave

bury

and

exp

lore

feas

ibili

ty w

ith b

us

com

pani

es

c. E

xplo

re a

fford

able

opt

ions

for

loca

l com

mun

ity

Iden

tify

man

agem

ent s

trat

egie

s to

min

imise

con

flict

be

twee

n us

ers

of th

e se

ctio

n of

the

A34

4 w

hich

is

subj

ect t

o th

e Tr

affic

Regu

latio

n O

rder

(TRO

) in

clud

ing

vehi

cles

, hor

ses,

wal

kers

, cyc

lists

and

hor

se

draw

n ca

rria

ges.

Impr

ove

bus

links

from

sur

roun

ding

tow

ns a

nd

villa

ges

to S

tone

heng

e

Impl

emen

t sus

tain

able

tran

spor

t act

ions

from

W

HS

Tran

spor

t Stra

tegy

: im

prov

ed c

ycle

and

bus

in

fras

truc

ture

; pro

mot

ion

thro

ugh

impr

oved

jour

ney

plan

ning

and

bus

rou

tes

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

EH Wilt

s an

d D

orse

t Bus

C

ompa

ny

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

Loca

l Tra

ns-

port

Bod

y fo

r W

iltsh

ire, E

H,

NT

WH

SCU

, W

ilts

and

Dor

set B

us

Com

pany

, TW

, N

WD

AO

NB,

Pa

rish

and

Tow

n C

ounc

ils

NT,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

EH, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

WH

SCU

, N

WD

AO

NB

2/ 2017

2/ 2015

3/ On-

goin

g

2/ 2018

4a

/71

4c/8

3, 8

4, 8

7 &

88

6c/1

48 &

149

4c/8

3

6c/1

46

6c/1

46

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g/Pr

ivat

e se

ctor

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Dec

reas

e in

the

num

ber

of v

isito

rs

arri

ving

by

car

Incr

ease

in p

erce

ntag

e of

visi

tors

arr

ivin

g by

Su

stai

nabl

e tr

ansp

ort

Impr

oved

pub

lic

tran

spor

t and

oth

er

sust

aina

ble

tran

spor

t lin

ks a

vaila

ble

betw

een

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd A

vebu

ry

A r

oute

pro

vide

d al

ong

the

sect

ion

of th

e A

344

subj

ect t

o th

e T

RO

whi

ch r

educ

es a

ny

confl

ict b

etw

een

user

s

Incr

ease

in n

umbe

r of

bu

s lin

ks fr

om to

wns

an

d vi

llage

s

Sust

aina

ble

tran

spor

t ac

tions

impl

emen

ted

Sto

ne

he

nge

Ave

bu

ry


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

150

151

152

153

154

155

Enco

urag

e re

sear

ch in

line

with

the

WH

S Re

sear

ch

Fram

ewor

k

Mon

itor,

revi

ew a

nd u

pdat

e th

e W

HS

Rese

arch

Fr

amew

ork

on a

reg

ular

bas

is w

ith a

per

iodi

c re

view

af

ter

ten

year

s

Rein

forc

e gu

idan

ce o

n su

stai

nabl

e re

sear

ch

prov

ided

by

the

Ston

ehen

ge a

nd A

vebu

ry R

esea

rch

Fram

ewor

k (S

AR

F).

Enco

urag

e ad

here

nce

to th

e IfA

Cod

e of

Con

duct

an

d M

OR

PHE

guid

elin

es w

ithin

the

WH

S an

d its

se

ttin

g

Dev

elop

link

s w

ith n

atio

nal a

nd in

tern

atio

nal

WH

Ss, u

nive

rsiti

es a

nd r

esea

rche

rs w

ith s

imila

r re

sear

ch in

tere

sts

Enco

urag

e co

mpl

etio

n an

d di

ssem

inat

ion

of

unpu

blish

ed p

ast r

esea

rch

Prom

ote

crea

tive

PhD

par

tner

ship

s

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

HE,

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

EH/N

T

1/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

2025

2/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

3/ Ong

oing

–

–

–

5b

/108

5f/

131

7b

/159

4b

/78

5b

/108

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Rese

arch

add

ress

es

ques

tions

in R

esea

rch

Fram

ewor

k

Rese

arch

Fra

mew

ork

is up

to d

ate

Rese

arch

ers

adhe

re

to IF

A c

ode

and

M

OR

PHE

Gui

delin

es

Nat

iona

l and

in

tern

atio

nal

colle

ague

s at

tend

se

min

ars

and

shar

e kn

owle

dge

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g

Incr

ease

in p

ublic

atio

n of

pas

t res

earc

h

PhD

focu

ssin

g on

Re

sear

ch F

ram

ewor

k th

emes

Re

searc

h

Aim

7 –

En

co

ura

ge

an

d p

rom

ote

su

stain

ab

le r

ese

arc

h t

o im

pro

ve u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e a

rch

aeo

logic

al, h

isto

ric a

nd

en

vir

on

me

nta

l valu

e o

f th

e W

HS

nece

ssary

fo

r it

s ap

pro

pri

ate

man

age

me

nt.

Max

imis

e t

he

pu

blic b

en

efi

t o

f th

is r

ese

arc

h

Polic

y 7a

– E

ncou

rage

sus

tain

able

arc

haeo

logi

cal r

esea

rch

of t

he h

ighe

st q

ualit

y in

the

WH

S, in

form

ed b

y th

e W

HS

Rese

arch

Fra

mew

ork


241

A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

156

157

158

159

160

161

Del

iver

out

com

es o

f th

e co

unty

-wid

e pr

ojec

t ai

med

at s

ecur

ing

long

-ter

m s

tora

ge fa

cilit

ies

for

the

arch

ive,

rec

ords

and

col

lect

ions

to e

nsur

e th

ose

rela

ted

to th

e W

HS

held

by

Salis

bury

and

Wilt

shire

M

useu

ms

are

adeq

uate

ly p

rovi

ded

for

Expl

ore

optio

ns fo

r lo

ng-t

erm

sto

rage

of

the

Ale

xand

er K

eille

r M

useu

m (A

KM

) col

lect

ions

Requ

ire r

esea

rch

proj

ect d

esig

ns to

incl

ude

arra

ngem

ents

for

man

agin

g an

d fu

ndin

g st

orag

e of

find

s an

d da

ta a

s a

cond

ition

of

Sche

dule

d M

onum

ent C

onse

nt (S

MC

)/lic

ence

Car

ry o

ut a

rev

iew

of

past

exc

avat

ions

, re

sear

ch a

nd c

olle

ctio

ns.

Faci

litat

e fu

ture

acc

ess

to a

ll fin

ds a

nd d

ata.

Expl

oit d

igita

l opp

ortu

nitie

s

Iden

tify

hist

oric

map

ping

and

rec

ord

in

accu

raci

es o

n N

atio

nal M

onum

ents

Rec

ord

Dev

elop

WH

S G

IS w

ithin

the

HER

. M

ake

avai

labl

e to

all

WH

S pa

rtne

rs

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

NT

HE

ASA

HRG

WH

SCU

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il

ASA

HRG

, EH

, HE,

NT,

M

useu

ms

Ass

ocia

tion,

A

rchi

ves

and

Reco

rds

Ass

oc.

AK

M A

dviso

ry

Boar

d in

clud

e EH

as

a

nece

ssity

Wilt

shire

C

ounc

il, G

rant

gi

ving

bod

ies

HE,

NT,

M

useu

ms,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

ASA

HRG

, H

E, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

HE

2/ 2020

2/ 2020

2/ Ong

oing

3/ 2020

1/ 2016

1/ 2016

/O

ngoi

ng

7b

/158

5a

/103

7b

/156

7c/1

63

7a

/154

3a

/17

3h

/61

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Fund

ing

Exist

ing

Gra

nt F

undi

ng/

Pote

ntia

l PhD

pr

ojec

t

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Ade

quat

e st

orag

e fa

cilit

ies

iden

tified

Long

-ter

m o

ptio

ns

iden

tified

Con

sent

s on

ly

give

n fo

r pr

ojec

t de

signs

with

rel

evan

t pr

ovisi

ons

Revi

ew c

ompl

eted

and

co

llect

ions

/dat

a/fin

ds

acce

ssib

le

List

of

inac

cura

cies

to in

form

rep

ort o

niss

ues

and

prio

rity

Com

preh

ensi

ve

GIS

ava

ilabl

e to

C

oord

inat

ion

Uni

t and

W

HS

part

ners

Polic

y 7b

– Im

prov

e in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t and

pub

lic a

cces

s to

dat

a se

ts a

nd p

rovid

e ad

equa

te fa

cilit

ies

for

arch

ives

and

stor

age

of fi

nds


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

Enco

urag

e da

ta s

harin

g be

twee

n W

HS

part

ners

an

d re

quire

as

part

of

SMC

/lic

ence

Lice

nces

and

con

sent

s sh

ould

incl

ude

cond

ition

s fo

r pu

blic

eng

agem

ent w

here

app

ropr

iate

, diss

emin

atio

n of

res

earc

h an

d sh

arin

g of

dat

a w

ith th

e H

ER, a

rchi

v-in

g of

dat

a an

d co

llect

ions

Dev

elop

an

ASA

HRG

sec

tion

on th

e W

HS

web

site

linki

ng to

res

earc

h pu

blic

atio

ns a

nd r

elev

ant r

esea

rch

web

sites

Esta

blish

a b

ienn

ial p

ublic

sem

inar

in p

artn

ersh

ip

with

Wilt

shire

Arc

haeo

logi

cal a

nd N

atur

al H

istor

y So

ciet

y (W

AN

HS)

or

othe

r W

HS

part

ners

Prov

ide

oppo

rtun

ities

for

the

com

mun

ity to

be

enga

ged

in r

esea

rch

proj

ects

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te

Enco

urag

e pr

ovid

ers

to p

rese

nt a

pro

gram

me

of

spec

ial e

xhib

ition

s an

d pe

rman

ent d

ispla

ys to

refl

ect

rece

nt r

esea

rch

Mon

itor

and

reco

rd p

ublic

ben

efit o

f re

sear

ch

with

in th

e W

HS

HE

HE,

NT

WH

SCU

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

WH

SCU

ASA

HRG

ASA

HRG

, NT,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil,

En

viro

nmen

t A

genc

y (E

A),

NW

DA

ON

B

WM

, SM

, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

WM

EH, N

T, S

M,

WM

, HE,

A

SAH

RG

2/ Ong

oing

1/ Ong

oing

1/ 2015

1/ 2016

2/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

3/ 2015

/ O

ngoi

ng

–

7b

/158

5e

/123

& 1

28

5c/1

15

5c/1

14–1

18

5a

/97

5c/1

14

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

Exist

ing

WH

S-re

late

d da

ta

avai

labl

e to

par

tner

s

Lice

nces

and

con

sent

s in

clud

e re

leva

nt

cond

ition

s

Page

s on

Rese

arch

cr

eate

d an

d di

ssem

inat

ion

impr

oved

Sem

inar

take

s pl

ace

ever

y tw

o ye

ars

Incr

ease

d in

volv

emen

t of

the

com

mun

ity in

re

sear

ch p

roje

ct

Disp

lays

refl

ect r

esul

ts

of r

ecen

t res

earc

h

Reco

rd o

f pu

blic

atio

nsan

d ou

trea

ch/

educ

atio

n ev

ents

Polic

y 7c

– M

axim

ise d

issem

inat

ion,

inte

rpre

tatio

n, e

duca

tion

and

publ

ic en

gage

men

t rel

ated

to re

sear

ch


243

Acti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

169

170

171

Enco

urag

e no

vel a

nd in

nova

tive

rese

arch

in a

ll ar

eas

incl

udin

g hi

stor

iogr

aphy

, soc

ial h

istor

y, p

ublic

en

gage

men

t, th

e na

tura

l and

hist

oric

env

ironm

ent,

and

hist

ory

of a

rt

Revi

ew a

nd u

pdat

e th

e M

anag

emen

t Pla

n

ever

y 6

year

s

Prod

uce

an a

nnua

l act

ion

plan

for

the

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit t

o be

rev

iew

ed a

nd s

igne

d off

by

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ees

and

Part

ners

hip

Pane

l

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

HE,

ASA

HRG

, N

E

WH

SC,

WH

PP

WH

SC,

WH

PP

3/ Ong

oing

1/ 2021

1/ 2015

3h

/61

5a

/93

5c/1

17

5e

/121

–122

–

–

Exist

ing

Exist

ing/

Gra

nt fu

ndin

g

N/A

Rese

arch

refl

ects

ra

nge

of v

alue

s re

late

d to

the

WH

S

Man

agem

ent P

lan

publ

ished

and

ac

cept

ed b

y U

NES

CO

Endo

rsed

by

all

part

ners

Ann

ual p

lan

prod

uced

an

d ag

reed

by

WH

SPP

& s

teer

ing

com

mitt

ees

Polic

y 7d

– U

nder

take

oth

er t

ypes

of r

esea

rch,

suc

h as

the

ass

essm

ent o

f bio

dive

rsity

, as

appr

opria

te

Aim

8 –

Pro

vid

e a

deq

uate

man

age

me

nt

syst

em

s an

d r

eso

urc

es

for

the

co

nse

rvati

on

an

d m

on

ito

rin

g o

f th

e W

HS

Polic

y 8a

– Im

plem

ent t

he M

anag

emen

t Pla

n an

d lia

ise w

ith p

artn

ers

to m

aint

ain

and

enha

nce

the

pres

ent p

artn

ersh

ip a

ppro

ach

Man

age

me

nt,

Lia

iso

n a

nd

Mo

nit

ori

ng


A

cti

on

Le

ad

part

ne

r

Key P

art

ne

rs

Pri

ori

ty/

R

ela

ted

Po

licy/

Po

ssib

le F

un

din

g

Ou

tpu

ts/

T

ime

scale

A

cti

on

S

ou

rce

S

ucce

ss M

easu

re

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

Esta

blish

long

-ter

m fu

ndin

g ar

rang

emen

ts fo

r th

e C

oord

inat

ion

Uni

t and

put

in p

lace

ade

quat

e re

sour

ces

Seek

to in

crea

se p

riva

te a

nd p

hila

nthr

opic

fund

ing

Und

erta

ke fe

asib

ility

stu

dy o

n es

tabl

ishin

g a

W

HS

fund

to s

uppo

rt d

eliv

ery

of th

e W

HS

Man

agem

ent P

lan

Max

imise

pro

ject

fund

ing

to a

chie

ve M

anag

emen

t Pl

an a

ctio

ns fr

om a

ll so

urce

s

Incr

ease

cap

acity

of

the

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit.

C

onsid

er a

ppro

pria

te v

olun

teer

sup

port

Revi

se th

e W

HS

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

to e

nsur

e th

ey e

ncom

pass

all

rele

vant

impa

cts

on th

e W

HS

and

its a

ttrib

utes

of

OU

V.

Ensu

re th

e W

HS

part

ners

put

them

in p

lace

Prod

uce

the

UN

ESC

O p

erio

dic

repo

rt e

very

6 y

ears

Regu

lar

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

of th

e eff

ectiv

enes

s of

the

WH

S go

vern

ance

arr

ange

men

ts

incl

udin

g th

e W

HS

Coo

rdin

atio

n U

nit

WH

SPP

WH

SPP

WH

SPP

WH

SPP,

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SCU

WH

SPP

HE,

NT,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

HE,

NT,

W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

NT,

HE,

Wilt

shire

Cou

ncil,

N

WD

AO

NB

EH, N

T,

Wilts

hire

Cou

ncil

All

part

ners

WH

SSC

WH

SCU

, NT,

H

E, W

iltsh

ire

Cou

ncil

1/ 2016

2/ 2015

1/ Ong

oing

2/ Ong

oing

1/ 2016

1/ 2019

1/

Ong

oing

–

–

3f/

55

5c/1

16

3j/

66

–

–

N/A

Exist

ing/

G

rant

fund

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Exist

ing

Sust

aina

ble

fund

ing

pack

age

for

long

-ter

m

supp

ort o

f W

HSC

U

Feas

ibili

ty c

arrie

d ou

t and

any

re

com

men

datio

ns

carr

ied

out

Proj

ect f

undi

ng

avai

labl

e fo

r ac

tion

plan

pro

ject

s

Mea

sure

hou

rs a

vaila

ble

to th

e W

HSC

U

Wor

kabl

e m

onito

ring

indi

cato

rs. R

egul

ar

part

ner

repo

rts

to

WH

SCU

Perio

dic

Com

plet

ed

and

subm

itted

to

UN

ESC

O a

s re

quire

d

Revi

ew in

201

6/18

. C

arry

out

rec

omm

en-

datio

ns

Polic

y 8b

– S

eek

adeq

uate

fund

ing

for

the

coor

dina

tion

of t

he W

HS

and

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Man

agem

ent P

lan

Polic

y 8c

– E

nsur

e re

gula

r m

onito

ring

of t

he W

HS

Bibliography

St James Church and Avebury Dovecote © Steve Marshall

246 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Bibliography/End notes

Bibliography

AAHRG (Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group) 2001 Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology for English Heritage and AAHRG

Anon ( January) 2002 ‘Principles for Undertaking Archaeological Work in the Stonehenge WHS’. Unpublished typescript prepared by English Heritage, the Highways Agency, the National Trust and Wiltshire County Council

ASH Consulting Group 1997 The Avebury WHS Visitor and Traffic Management Study. Unpublished report for English Heritage

Atkins 2006 Saltaire World Heritage Site Environmental Capacity Study. Bradford: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Atkins 2007 Avebury Conservation Management Plan Report. Unpublished report for National Trust

Atkins 2015 Avebury World Heritage Site Transport Strategy. Unpublished report for WHS Avebury Steering Committee

Banton, S, Bowden, M, Saw, T, Grady D, and Soutar, S 2014 ‘Parchmarks at Stonehenge, July 2013’. Antiquity 341, 733–49

Batchelor, D 1997 ‘Mapping the Stonehenge World Heritage Site’. Proceedings of the British Academy 92, 61–72

Bayliss, A, Whittle, A and Wysocki, M 2007 ‘Talking about my generation: the date of the West Kennet long barrow’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, 85–101

Bowden, M, Soutar, S, Field, D and Barber, M 2015 The Stonehenge Landscape: Analysing the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. London: English Heritage

Brown, G, Field, D and McOmish, D 2005 The Avebury Landscape. Aspects of the Field Archaeology of the Marlborough Downs. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Calver, S 1998 Avebury Visitor Research 1996–8. Unpublished report for National Trust

Cathersides, A 2001 ‘Stonehenge: restoration of grassland setting’. Conservation Bulletin 40. London: English Heritage, 34–6

Chadburn, A 2011 ‘Case Study 2.1: Stonehenge World Heritage Site, United Kingdom‘, in Ruggles, C and Cotte, M (eds) Heritage

Sites of Astronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the context of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Paris: ICOMOS and IAU, 34–9

Chadburn, A 2014 ‘Rock-art: An overview of recent developments and initiatives by UNESCO and ICOMOS with especial reference to World Heritage Sites’, in Darvill,T and Batarda Fernandes, A P (eds) Open-Air Rock-Art Conservation and Management. New York: Routledge

Chippindale, C 2012 Stonehenge Complete, 4 edn. London: Thames and Hudson

Chris Blandford Associates 1997 Avebury WHS Landscape Assessment and Planning Framework

Chris Blandford Associates 2000a Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan. Chris Blandford Associates 2000b Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan: Summary.

Chris Blandford Associates 2010 Ecological Management Strategy for Visitor Access to the Landscape. Chris Blandford Associates for English Heritage (SEIP)

Chris Blandford Associates 2015 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy. Unpublished report for Natural England

Cleal, R, Walker, K and Montague, R 1995 Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 10. London: English Heritage

Cleere, H 1995 ‘Cultural landscapes as World Heritage’. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1(1), 63–8

Cunliffe, B and Renfrew, C (eds) 1997 ‘Science and Stonehenge’. Proceedings of the British Academy 92. London: British Academy

Darvill, T 1997 Stonehenge Conservation and Management Programme: A Summary of Archaeological Assessments and Field Evaluations Undertaken 1990–1996. London: English Heritage

Darvill, T (ed) 2005 Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeological Research Framework. London and Bournemouth: Bournemouth University for English Heritage

Darvill, T 2006 Stonehenge, the Biography of a Landscape. Stroud: Tempus

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Bibliography/Endnotes

247

Darvill, T, Leüth, F, Rassmann, K, Fischer, A and Winkelmann, K, 2013 ‘Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK: High Resolution Geophysical Surveys in the Surrounding Landscape, 2011’. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (1), 63–93

Darvill, T and Wainwright, G 2009 ‘Stonehenge excavations 2008’. Antiquaries Journal 89, 1–19

De Smedt, P 2014 ‘Unveiling the prehistoric landscape at Stonehenge through multi-receiver EMI’. Journal of Archaeological Science 50, 15–23

Defence Estates 2010 Salisbury Plain Training Area Integrated Rural Management Plan. Salisbury: Defence Estates

English Heritage 1992 Avebury World Heritage Site: A Management Statement

English Heritage 2001 Policy Statement on Restoration, Reconstruction and Speculative Recreation of Archaeological Sites, Including Ruins

English Heritage 2008 Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the Historic Environment

English Heritage 2014 Heritage at Risk South West(https://www.historicengland.org.uk/news-and-features/news/english-heritage-reveals-south-west-heritage-at-risk-register-2014)

English Heritage 2013 Exploring the World Heritage Site: Stonehenge and Avebury 1:10,000 Map:. London: English Heritage

English Heritage 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (http://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/)

Exon, S, Gaffney, V, Woodward, A and Yorston, R 2000 Stonehenge Landscapes: Journeys through Real and Imagined Worlds. Oxford: Archaeopress

Fielden, B and Jokilehoto, J 1998 Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: ICCROM/UNESCO/ICOMOS

Forestry Commission 2009 Undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment in Forestry and preparing an Environmental Statement. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission

Forestry Commission 2011 The UK’s Forestry Standard: The Governments’ Approach to Sustainable Forestry, 3 edn.

Edinburgh: Forestry Commission

Forestry Commission 2013 A Strategy for Open Habitat Policy Delivery on the Public Forest Estate. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission

Fowler, P 2000 Landscape Plotted and Pieced: Landscape History and Local Archaeology in Fyfield and Overton, Wiltshire. London: Society of Antiquaries

Fowler, P 2004a Landscapes for the World. Conserving a Global Heritage. Macclesfield: Windgather Press

Fowler, P 2004b World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002.World Heritage Papers 6. Paris: UNESCO

French, C, Scaife, R, Allen, M J, Parker Pearson, M, Pollard, J, Richards, J, Thomas, J and Welham, K 2012 ‘Durrington Walls to West Amesbury by way of Stonehenge: a major transformation of the Holocene landscape’. Antiquaries Journal 92, 1–36

Gaffney, C, Gaffney, V, Neubauer, W, Baldwin, E, Chapman, H, Garwood, P, Moulden, H, Sparrow, T, Bates, R, Locker, K, Hinterleitner, A, Trinks, I, Nau, E, Zitz, T, Floery, S, Verhoeven, G and Doneus, M 2012 ‘The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project’. Archaeological Prospection 19.2, 147–55

Gillings, M and Pollard, J 2004 Avebury. London: Duckworth

Gillings, M, Pollard, J, Peterson, R and Wheatley D 2008 Landscape of the Megaliths: Excavation and Fieldwork on the Avebury Monuments, 1997–2003. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Goskar, T A, Carty, A, Cripps, P, Brayne, C and Vickers, D 2003 The Stonehenge Laser Show, British Archaeology 73

(http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba73/feat1.shtml)

Hales, S 2014 Draft Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve Management Plan. Unpublished report for Natural England

Hosker, Y 2001 Avebury WHS Interpretation Plan Project. Unpublished report

Hunter J, Woodward A 2014 Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods: An Examination of Ritual and Dress Equipment from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Graves in England. Oxford: Oxbow Books

ICOMOS 1964 The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter)

ICOMOS UK 2006 Toolkit for WHS Monitoring Indicators

248 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Bibliography/Endnotes

Ixer, R A and Bevins, R E 2013 ‘A re-examination of ryolitic “debitage” from the Heelstone and other areas within the Stonehenge Landscape’. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 106, 1-15

Jacques, D, Phillips, T et al, 2014 ‘Mesolithic settlement near Stonehenge: excavations at Blick Mead, Vespasian’s Camp, Amesbury’. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 107, 7–27

JNCC and Defra July 2012 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Johnson, A 2008 Solving Stonehenge: The New Key to an Ancient Enigma. London: Thames and Hudson

Kennet District Council 2005 Landscape Conservation Strategy

Land Use Consultants 1995 The Stonehenge WHS Landscape and Planning Study

Land Use Consultants 2005 Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment: Final report.

Larsson, M and Parker Pearson, M (eds) 2007 ‘From Stonehenge to the Baltic’. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1692. Oxford: Archaeopress

Last, J 2003–4 Assessment of badger damage at Barrow Clump. Unpublished report for English Heritage

Lawson, A J 2007 Chalkland: An Archaeology of Stonehenge and its Region. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press

Leary, J, Canti, M, Field, D, Fowler, P, Marshall, P and Campbell G 2013 ‘The Marlborough Mound, Wiltshire. A Further Neolithic Monumental Mound by the River Kennet’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79, 137–63

Leary, J and Field, D 2010 The Story of Silbury Hill. Swindon: English Heritage

Leary, J, Field, D and Campbell, G 2013 Silbury Hill. Europe’s Largest Prehistoric Mound. Swindon: English Heritage

McOmish, D, Field, D and Brown, G 2002 The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area. London: English Heritage

Murphy, P, Simmonds, S and Thomas, B 2014 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Climate Change Risk Assessment.

National Trust 1997 Walking Around Avebury

Natural England 2007 European Landscape Convention: A Framework for Implementation

Natural England 2013 NCA Profile: 116 Berkshire and Marlborough Downs (NE482). Natural England (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4822422297509888)

Natural England 2013 NCA Profile: 132 Salisbury Plain and West Wiltshire Downs (NE479). Natural England (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5001829523914752)

Needham, S, Lawson, A J, and Woodward, A 2010 ‘ “A Noble Group of Barrows”: Bush Barrow and the Normanton Down early Bronze Age cemetery two centuries on’. Antiquaries Journal 90, 1–39

Needham, S, Parker Pearson, M, Tyler A, Richards, M and Jay

M 2010 ‘A first “Wessex 1” date from Wessex’. Antiquity 84, 363–73

North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2014–2019 (http://www.northwessexdowns.org.uk/About-Us/aonb-management-plan.html)

Parker Pearson, M, Cleal, R, Marshall, P, Needham, S, Pollard, J, Richards, C, Ruggles, C, Sheridan, A, Thomas, J, Tilley, C, Welham, K, Chamberlain, A, Chenery, C, Evans, J, Knüsel, C, Linford, N, Martin, L, Montgomery, J, Payne, A and Richards, M 2007 ‘The age of Stonehenge’, Antiquity 81, 617–39

Parker Pearson, M 2012 ‘Stonehenge and the beginning of the British Neolithic’, in Jones, A M, Pollard, J, Allen, M J and Gardiner, J (eds) Image, Memory and Monumentality. Archaeological Engagements with the Material World: A Celebration of the Academic Achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 18–28

Parker Pearson, M 2013 Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. London: Simon and Schuster

Parkman 2003 Avebury WHS Proposed Northern Car Park Feasibility Study

Pitts, M 2001 Hengeworld. London: Arrow Books

Pollard, J 2012 ‘Living with Sacred Spaces: The Henge Monuments of Wessex’, in Gibson A (ed) Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2440, 93–107

Pollard, J, Allen, M, Cleal, R, Snashall, N, Gunter, J, Roberts, V and Robinson, D 2012 ‘East of Avebury: tracing prehistoric activity and environmental change in the environs of Avebury Henge (excavations at Rough Leaze 2007)’. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 105, 1–20


249

Pollard, J and Reynolds, A 2002 Avebury: Biography of a Landscape. Stroud: Tempus

Pomeroy, M 1998 Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan. London: English Heritage

Pomeroy-Kellinger, M 2005 Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan. London: English Heritage

Richards, C and Thomas, J 2012 ‘The Stonehenge Landscape Before Stonehenge’, in Jones, A M, Pollard, J, Allen, M J and Gardiner, J (eds) Image, Memory and Monumentality. Archaeological Engagements with the Material World: A Celebration of the Academic Achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 29–42

Richards, J 1990 The Stonehenge Environs Project. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 16. London: English Heritage

Richards, J 1991 Beyond Stonehenge: A Guide to Stonehenge and its Prehistoric Landscape, 2 edn. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology

Richards, J 1991 English Heritage Book of Stonehenge. London: B T Batsford

Richards, J 2004 Stonehenge: A History in Photographs. London: English Heritage

Richards, J 2007 Stonehenge: The Story so Far. London: English Heritage

Richards, J 2013 Stonehenge (guidebook). London: English Heritage

Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England 1979 Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

RSPB 2007 Normanton Down Management Plan. Unpublished report for RSPB

Sheldrake, P 2008 Stone-curlews in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site – A Management Strategy. Unpublished report for RSPB

Simmonds, S 2008 Avebury World Heritage Site Residents’ Pack

Simmonds, S 2010 The Avebury Residents’ Pack. Conservation Bulletin 63. English Heritage, 10–12

Small, F 1999 The Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping Project, Wiltshire. English Heritage

Snashall, N 2007 ‘An Earlier Neolithic Site at Hackpen, Overton Hill, Avebury’. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 100, 227

Stovel H 1998 Risk Preparedness: a Management Manual for World Cultural Heritage. Rome: ICCROM

Swanwick, C and Land Use Consultants 2002 Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage

Thomas, J, Marshall, P, Parker Pearson, M, Pollard, J, Tilley, C and Welham, K 2009 ‘The date of the Greater Stonehenge Cursus’, Antiquity 83, 40–53

UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO 2002 Monitoring World Heritage. World Heritage Papers 10. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO 2007 Climate Change and World Heritage. World Heritage Occasional Paper 22. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO 2013 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO

United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO 2013 The Wider Value of UNESCO to the UK 2012–2013, UKNC

Wessex Archaeology 2003 Condition Survey and Management Recommendations for Archaeological Sites within the Stonehenge World Heritage: Volume 1 and 2 and Executive Summary. Unpublished report

Wessex Archaeology (forthcoming) 2015 Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF). Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology

Wheeldon, J 2003 The River Avon SAC Conservation Strategy. Peterborough: English Nature

Whittle, A 1997 Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Whittle, A, Grigson, C and Pollard, J 1999 The Harmony of Symbols; Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Whittle, A, Healy, F, Bayliss, A 2011 Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Wiltshire Council 2015 Wiltshire Core Strategy


Wiltshire County Council Library and Museums Service 1990 Avebury World Heritage Site Archaeological Management Survey

Worthington, A 2004 Stonehenge: celebration and subversion. Loughborough: Alternative Albion

Young, C, Chadburn, A and Bedu, I 2009 Stonehenge WHS Management Plan. London: English Heritage

SURVEYS

Adams, N 2014 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Bird Survey. Unpublished report

English Heritage 2003 Stonehenge Lichen Survey. Unpublished report

National Trust 2005, 2006 and 2007 Grassland reversion surveys. Unpublished reports

National Trust 2007 Biological Survey. Unpublished report

National Trust 2008 Woodland survey. Unpublished report

National Trust 2008 Condition survey and management recommendations for National Trust archaeological sites within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Unpublished report

National Trust 2008 Nature Conservation Evaluation, Stonehenge. Unpublished report

RSPB 2004 onwards Annual surveys of vegetation, butterflies and breeding birds on Normanton Down Reserve. Unpublished reports

RSPB 2005 Stonehenge World Heritage Site Breeding Birds Survey. Unpublished report

Stonehenge Riverside Project. 2003-2008. Geophysical surveys at Durrington Walls, Stonehenge Avenue, Cursus

Stonehenge Riverside Project. 2003-2008. Excavations at Durrington Walls, Stonehenge Avenue, Cursus, Woodhenge

Wessex Archaeology 1998 Stonehenge Military Installations. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology

Wessex Archaeology 2002 Laser survey of the Stonehenge carvings

Wessex Archaeology 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008. Field walking surveys in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Commissioned by English Heritage, the National Trust and Highways Agency

Wessex Archaeology 2003 Condition survey and management recommendations for archaeological sites within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site: Volume 1 and 2 and Executive Summary. Unpublished report for English Heritage

Wessex Archaeology 2012 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Monument Condition Survey. Unpublished report

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 2014 Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. Unpublished report

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) Survey

Reports: Research Department Report Series

Abbott M and Anderson-Whymark, H. Stonehenge Laser Scan: Archaeological Analysis Report.Report Reference: 32/2012

Amadio, L and Bishop, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Cursus Barrows and Surrounding Area.Report Reference: 85/2010

Barber, M. Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project: Restoring Stonehenge 1881-1939.Report Reference: 6/2014

Barber, M. Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project: Stonehenge Aerodrome and the Stonehenge Landscape.Report Reference: 7/2014

Barrett, K and Bowden, M. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project, Normanton Down: Archaeological Survey Report.Report Reference: 90/2010

Bishop, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Durrington Firs.Report Reference: 86/2010

Bishop, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Level 1 Field Investigations.Report Reference: 82/2011

Bishop, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: King Barrow Ridge.Report Reference: 83/2011

Bishop, S and Komar, A. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project, Fargo South: Archaeological Survey Report.Report Reference: 96/2010

Bowden, M. Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project: Wilsford Down Barrows.


251

Report Reference: 108/2010

Bowden, M. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Earthworks at Lake and West Amesbury.Report Reference: 92/2011

Bowden, M, Field, D and Soutar, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Lake Barrows, The Diamond and Normanton Gorse.Report Reference: 29/2012

Bax, S, Bowden, M, Komar, A and Newsome, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads. Archaeological Survey Report.Report Reference: 107/2010

Campbell, G, Canti, M and Greaney, S (eds). Stonehenge World Heritage Site Synthesis: Prehistoric Landscape, Environment and Economy. Report Reference: 45/2013

Field, D, Bowden, M and Soutar, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Avenue and Stonehenge Bottom.Report Reference: 31/2012

Field, D and Pearson, T. World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Archaeological Survey Report. Report Reference: 109/2010

Field, D and Pearson, T. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Stonehenge Avenue, Amesbury, Wiltshire (forthcoming 2015).Report Reference: 104/2011

Field, D and Pearson, T. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge Down and the Triangle, Amesbury, Wiltshire.Report Reference: 105/2011

Fry, S. A History of the National Heritage Collection, Volume Three: Stonehenge.Report Reference: 47/2014

Fry, S. A History of the National Heritage Collection, Volume Five: 1931-1945: ‘Heritage Under Fire’: Hadrian’s Wall, Avebury and the Second World War.Report Reference: 49/2014

Komar, A. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Lake Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake.Report Reference: 95/2010

Komar, A and Field, D. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: A344 Corridor: Level 1 Survey.

Report Reference: 35/2012

Lane, R. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Architectural Assessment.Report Reference: 42/2011

Last, J. Avebury Southern Car Park (Glebe Field): A Desk-Based Assessment.Report Reference: 29/2002

Linford, N T. Stonehenge, Wiltshire: Report on Magnetic Susceptibility Survey, January 2013.Report Reference: 49/2013

Linford, N T, Linford P K and Payne, A W. Stonehenge Monument Field and Barrows, Wiltshire: Report on Geophysical Surveys, September 2010, April and July 2011.Report Reference: 34/2012

Marshall, P, Darvill, T, Parker Pearson, M and Wainwright, G. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Chronological Modelling. Scientific Dating Report.Report Reference: 1/2012

Payne, A. 2003 Durrington Walls Henge, Wiltshire. Report on Geophysical Surveys.Report reference: 107/2003

Payne, A W. Stonehenge Riverside Project, West Amesbury and Greater Cursus, Wiltshire: Report on Geophysical Surveys, July 2006.Report Reference: 41/2007

Payne, A W. Stonehenge Greater Cursus, Western Terminal, Wiltshire: Report on Geophysical Surveys, May and June 2007.Report Reference: 61/2007

Payne, A W, Linford, N T, Linford, P K, and Martin, L. Silbury Hill Environs, Avebury, Wiltshire. Report on Geophysical Survey, February 2005.Report Reference: 19/2006

Pearson, T, Field, D and Bowden, M. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Greater Cursus, Amesbury, Wiltshire.Report Reference: 103/2011

Soutar, S. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Larkhill Barrows, Durrington. Archaeological Survey Report.Report Reference: 3/2012

Vincent, S and Mays, S A. Assessment of Human Remains Excavated from the Stonehenge Landscape 3700–1600 BC.Report Reference: 34/2010


EDUCATION RESOURCES

Carver, E and Greaney, S 2010 Stonehenge WHS Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy. English Heritage

UNESCO 1998 World Heritage in Young Hands: An educational resource kit for teachers. UNESCO Publishing (http://whc.unesco.org/en/educationkit/)

UNESCO 2002 Tell Me About World Heritage. UNESCO Publishing

English Heritage Stonehenge Education Activities (downloadable resource) 2009* English Heritage Stonehenge Teachers’ Kit (downloadable resource) 2014*English Heritage Avebury Teachers’ Kit (downloadable resource) 2010*

*Downloadable resource from http://www.stonehengeandaveburywhs.org/education/

Further education resources on Stonehenge, including information on Discovery Visits for Key Stage 1-3 (Stones and Bones: Stonehenge in its Landscape), Neolithic Life Key Stages 2–3 and 4–5 (The Business of Heritage and Tourism), can be found at www.english-heritage.org.uk/education/discovery-visits/stonehenge/


253

1 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk2 Pomeroy 1998.3 Chris Blandford Associates 2000.4 Pomeroy-Kellinger 2005.5 Young et al 2009.6 Nomination document (p9) prepared by the 7

Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, December 1985

7 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/planninganddevel-opment/planningpolicy/statementofcommunity-involvement.htm

8 Decision 32 COM 7B.114. See Appendix G.9 Pomeroy-Kellinger 2005, 2.1.3.10 Fowler 2004b, Annex C.11 Land Use Consultants 1995.12 Chris Blandford Associates 1997.13 Land Use Consultants 1995.14 Chris Blandford Associates 1997.15 Stonehenge Military Installations: A Desk-based

Assessment.16 Operational Guidelines 2013 II.D para 77–78,

http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/17 UNESCO 2013.18 Decision 32 COM 8B.93. See Appendix G.19 Wiltshire Heritage Museum has been renamed

the Wiltshire Museum while the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum is now known as Salis-bury Museum

20 Decision 31 COM 11D.1. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/documents/

21 Decision 37 COM 8E. See Appendix G.22 Closure of A344 delivered and reported to

UNESCO in 2014.23 Exon et al 2000.24 Parker Pearson 2013; https://www.sheffield.

ac.uk/archaeology/research/2.432925 Gillings et al 2008.26 See Section 8.5.21–8.5.2327 Simmonds 2008.28 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/planninganddevel-

opment/planningpolicy/landscapeconservation/wiltshireslandscape.htm

29 Hales 2014.30 Chris Blandford Associates 2015 and see below

Section 8.5.21–8.5.23.31 Parker Pearson et al 2007.32 Darvill 2006.33 Leary, Field and Campbell 2013.34 Avebury WHS Management Plan 2005, 3.7.3.35 Leary and Field 2010; Leary, Field and Campbell

2013. 36 32 COM 8B.71.37 Simmonds 2008.38 Leary, Field and Campbell 2013.39 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/imag-

es-books/publications/research-news-10/40 Bayliss et al 2007.41 Gillings et al 2008.

Endnotes

42 Foreword to Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009 by Barbara Follett Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism, p 4.

43 Stones and Bones Discovery Visits 2013: 7 ses-sions. Stones and Bones Discovery Visits 2014: 49 sessions.

44 Darvill 2005.45 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-246846 Darvill 2005.47 AAHRG 2001.48 Parker Pearson 2012.49 Thomas et al 2009.50 Darvill and Wainwright 2009.51 eg Field and Pearson 2010.52 Darvill et al 2012.53 Gaffney et al 2012.54 Abbott and Anderson-Whymark 2012.55 Darvill et al 2012.56 Pollard et al 2012.57 Leary, Field and Campbell 2013.58 Gillings et al 2008.59 Darvill et al 2013.60 Needham et al 2010.61 Whittle et al 2011.62 Bayliss et al 2007.63 eg Linford et al 2012.64 Leary, Field and Campbell 2013.65 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/

national-planning-policy-framework--266 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.

uk/blog/guidance/conserving-and-enhanc-ing-the-historic-environment/how-do-heri-tage-assets-become-designated/further-guid-ance-on-world-heritage-sites/

67 http://www.historicengland.org.uk/imag-es-books/publications/conservation-princi-ples-sustainable-management-historic-environ-ment/

68 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-137369 UNESCO Operational Guidelines 2013, para

114.70 Egeria Heritage Consulting 2012, Stonehenge,

Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Governance Review for the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Committee and the Avebury World Heritage Site Steering Committee March.

71 http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/34026.aspx

72 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/communityandliv-ing/mci-new/armybasing.htm

73 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy 2015 2.2.3.


75 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy 2015 2.2.4–6.


77 Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO 2013 para 155.

78 Operational Guidelines, para 114.79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_structur-

al_changes_to_local_government_in_England80 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice

In Planning Note 3: The Setting Of Heritage Assets

81 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/conserving-and-enhanc-ing-the-historic-environment/how-do-heri-tage-assets-become-designated/further-guid-ance-on-world-heritage-sites/

82 Atkins 2006.83 Natural England Technical Information Note

TIN005.84 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/imag-

es-books/publications/farming-historic-land-scape-introduction-for-farm-advisers/ https://www.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/managing-earthwork-monu-ments/ https://www.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/vacanthistoricbuild-ings/

85 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk

86 Wessex Archaeology 2012.87 32 COM 8B.71. See Appendix G.88 http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/lookin-

gafter/caringfor/historicfeaturesbuildings89 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/

news/stonehenge-solstitial-function90 https://www.gov.uk/government/publica-

tions/national-character-area-profiles-da-ta-for-local-decision-making NCA 116 Berk-shire and Marlborough Downs and NCA 132 Salisbury Plain and the West Wiltshire Downs

91 http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Loca-tion=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=12496

92 http://www.stockkeep.co.uk93 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/im-

ages-books/publications/managing-earth-work-monuments/

94 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021015a.htm

95 RSPB, Futurescapes Space for Nature, Land for Life (2010), p. 25.

96 https://www.gov.uk/government/publica-tions/biodiversity-2020-a-strategy-for-en-gland-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services

97 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-space-for-nature-a-review-of-englands-wildlife-sites-published-today; review published in 2010.

98 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/587130


99 Natural Environment White Paper Implementa-tion update report – February 2014 (Defra).

100 http://www.link2nature.org.uk101 http://www.rspb.org.uk/futurescapes/chalk-

country/index.aspx102 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1375103 http://www.wiltshirewildlife.org/what-we-do/

Managing-our-Land-to-Create-Living-Land-scapes

104 http://www.mdnia.org.uk/105 http://www.northwessexdowns.org.uk/proj-

ects/biodiversity/stepping-stones.html106 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/communityandliv-

ing/countryside/biodiversityandnature.htm107 http://www.link2nature.org.uk/land-

scape-map/background/designing-land-scape-biodiversity-areas.html

108 Chris Blandford Associates in association with Wessex Archaeology 2015 Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy.

109 UNESCO 2007, Climate Change and World Heritage, World Heritage Occasional Paper 22, Paris.

110 Murphy, Simmonds and Thomas 2014, Stone-henge and Avebury WHS Climate Change Risk Assessment, English Heritage.

111 Decision 28 COM 10B.4. See Appendix G.112 Herb Stovel 1998, Risk Preparedness: a Man-

agement Manual for World Cultural Heritage, ICCROM, Rome.

113 http://www.visitengland.org/insight-statistics/major-tourism-surveys/attractions/Annual_Sur-vey/

114 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017m16v

115 http://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk116 http://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk/part-

ners-and-advertising/tourism-strategy117 http://www.northwessexdowns.org.uk 118 http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/

theme_c/mod16.html119 http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5120 www.international.icomos.org/charters/tour-

ism_e.pdf121 ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism

Charter (1999 Principle 6).122 http://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk/part-

ners-and-advertising/tourism-strategy123 http://www.visitengland.com/biz/tourism-en-

gland/strategic-framework-tourism-england/industry-action-plans/wise-growth-action-plan

124 Ecological Management Strategy for Visitor Access to the Landscape, Chris Blandford Associates for English Heritage, SEIP, April 2010.

125 http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/things-to-do/walking/every-footstep-counts

126 Cathersides 2001.127 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/

places/stonehenge/# 128 32 COM 8B.71. See Appendix G.129 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/

disability-facts-and-figures130 http://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk/media/media/

visitor-accommodation-investment

131 http://www.northwessexdowns.org.uk/visit-north-wessex-downs/business-resources.html

132 http://www.connectingwiltshire.co.uk/133 http://www.1sw.org.uk 134 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/communityan-

dliving/rightsofway/countrysideaccessimprove-mentplanconsultation.htm

135 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/leisureandrecre-ation/sportandfitness/sportandphysicalactivity/healthandphysicalactivity/getwiltshirewalking.htm

136 http://www.wiltshirewildlife.org/sarsen-trail137 http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/

documents_info.php?documentID=1224138 http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/avebury/visi-

tor-information/article-1355840436863/139 http://www.stonehengeandaveburywhs.org/

downloads/sh-whs-interpretation-learning-par-ticipation/

140 http://www.historicengland.org.uk/ser-vices-skills/education/heritage-schools/

141 http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/learning142 http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/heritage-learn-

ing/resources143 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/plac-

es/stonehenge/school-visits/ 144 UNESCO Decision 31 COM 13A

1. Confirm, that in the future, the conser-vation of the world’s natural and cultural heritage should, wherever possible, be done with the active engagement of communities which have a close relationship with the heritage in question.

2. Pledge that they shall, as appropriate, seek the active involvement of communities at all stages, from the preparation of tentative lists through to conservation requirements for sites which are in danger.

145 Operational Guidelines UNESCO 2013 para 26. 146 UNESCO Decision 31 COM 13A. http://whc.

unesco.org/en/list/373/documents/147 Conservation Bulletin Issue 63: Spring 2010

English Heritage.148 S Simmonds, Conservation Bulletin 63, p 10.149 S Simmonds, Conservation Bulletin 63, p 11.150 http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/hri/

blickmead151 http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/

localism.html 152 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/imag-

es-books/publications/knowing-your-place/153 http://www.wylyevalley1914.org.uk 154 Operational Guidelines UNESCO 2013.

269. Once a property is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the State Party should place a plaque, whenever possible, to com-memorate this inscription. These plaques are designed to inform the public of the country concerned and foreign visitors that the property visited has a particular value which has been recognised by the international community. In other words, the property is exceptional, of interest not only to one nation, but also to the whole world. However, these plaques have an additional function which is to inform the gener-

al public about the World Heritage Convention or at least about the World Heritage concept and the World Heritage List.

155 Operational Guidelines UNESCO 2013 para-graphs 270–2.

156 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/docu-ments/

157 (CC-86/CONF.001/11).158 (CC-86/CONF.003/10).159 Para 6.140.160 Ref: DPI/T3915/11/20.161 HT-047-11.162 County of Wiltshire (Stonehenge World

Heritage Site Town of Amesbury and Parish of Winterbourne Stoke) (Prohibition of driving) Order 2012.

163 A303/A30/A358 Corridor Feasibility Study Scoping Document Department of Transport 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/).

164 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstate-ments/statements/a303

165 Para. 5.19.166 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/wcs-exam-34b-

hearing-session-tracked-changes-version-2014-april.pdf

167 Autumn Statement (1 December 2014) by Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexan-der.

168 ICOMOS 2011.169 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.

uk/blog/guidance/conserving-and-enhanc-ing-the-historic-environment/how-do-heri-tage-asssets-become-designated/further-guid-ance-on-world-heritage-sites/

170 Atkins 2015.171 Source: Wiltshire Police 2014.172 Wessex Archaeology 2012.173 Ref: DPI/T3915/11/20.174 http://www.historicengland.org.uk/

images-books/publications/corpo-rate-plan-2011-2015/

175 Darvill 2005, 124.176 http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa177 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/imag-

es-books/publications/morphe-project-manag-ers-guide/

178 Darvill 2005.179 AAHRG 2001.180 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/research/

research-results/181 ICOMOS UK 2006, Toolkit for WHS Monitoring

Indicators.182 UNESCO 2002, Monitoring World Heritage,

World Heritage Papers 10.

Appendices

Stonehenge Avenue before the stopping up and grassing over of the A344 in 2013 © NMR1504_26 Crown copyright HE

256 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Appendices

Appendix A

Membership and terms of reference of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel and Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Steering Committees

1. Membership of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership PanelMembership December 2014

2. Membership of the Avebury WHS Steering CommitteeMembership December 2014

Chair – Andrew Williamson, Avebury Parish CouncilSecretariat – Avebury WHS Officer

Chair - Alistair SommerladSecretariat – WHS Coordination Unit

English Heritage (Director of Planning and Conservation - South West)

National Trust (General Manager Wiltshire Countryside)

Wiltshire Council (Portfolio Holder Heritage and Arts)

Chair of the Avebury WHS Steering Committee

Chair of the Stonehenge WHS Steering Committee

Representative of the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Research Group (ASAHRG)

WHS Coordination Unit

Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

Avebury Environs Group

Avebury Farmers’ Representative

Avebury Parish Council

Avebury Society

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

English Heritage, Head of International Advice

English Heritage, Inspector of Ancient Monuments Wiltshire

Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council

ICOMOS UK

Natural England, Land Management Team

National Trust, General Manager Wiltshire Countryside

North Wessex Downs AONB, Director

North Wessex Downs AONB, Planning Adviser

Stonehenge WHS Coordinator

VisitWiltshire, Head of Partnership

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society

Wiltshire Council, Cllr. West Selkley

Wiltshire Council, Associate Director, Economic Development and Planning

Wiltshire Council, Head of Place Shaping

Wiltshire Council, Head of Account Management

Wiltshire Council, County Archaeologist

Wiltshire Council, Principal Conservation Officer

Wiltshire Council, Area Development Manager

Winterbourne Monkton Parish Council

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Appendices

257

3. Membership of the Stonehenge WHS CommitteeMembership as of December 2014

Chair – Roger Fisher, Amesbury Town Council Secretariat – Stonehenge WHS Coordinator

Amesbury Town Council

Amesbury Society

Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

Avebury WHS Officer

Country Land and Business Association

Amesbury Community Area Board

Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Archaeological Adviser


Durrington Parish Council

English Heritage, General Manager, Stonehenge

English Heritage, Inspector of Ancient Monuments

English Heritage, Head of International Advice

Highways Agency

ICOMOS UK

National Farmers’ Union

National Trust, General Manager Wiltshire Landscape

National Trust, Archaeologist (Stonehenge and Avebury WHS)

Natural England, Land Management Team

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Salisbury Museum, Director

Shrewton Parish Council, Chair

VisitWiltshire, Chief Executive

Wilsford cum Lake Parish and representative of the WHS landowners

Wiltshire Council, County Archaeologist

Wiltshire Council, Head of Account Management

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society

Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council

Terms of Reference

The primary role of both Stonehenge and Avebury Steering Committees and the Stonehenge and

Avebury WHS Partnership Panel is to ensure the discharge of the obligations of the UK government under the World Heritage Convention in respect of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site. Members of the local Steering Committees and the WHS Partnership Panel will work individually and use the influence of the organisations and communities they represent to ensure that the WHS and its OUV is:

a. Protected, through statutory and non-statutory controlsb. Conserved, through maintenance , repair and enhancementc. Presented, through high quality interpretation and educational programmes

A strong and committed partnership approach will assist in fulfilling these obligations. Excellent communication, liaison and coordination across the two local Steering Committees and the Partnership Panel will be required to achieve this. The membership of all groups will be reviewed periodically


Local Steering CommitteesAction

1.0 to review and update periodically the WHS Management Plan in line with UNESCO guidance and agree its content

2.0 to coordinate activities and facilitate partnership working

3.0 to agree the annual action plan within the framework of the Management Plan

4.0 to establish task and finish groups for specific projects as required

5.0 to appoint chair of local Steering Committee. The Chairs will represent the local Steering Committee on the WHS Partnership Panel

6.0 to liaise and collaborate with the partner local Steering Committee whenever beneficial in achieving overarching and local WHS aims

7.0 to provide expert advice and to collaborate with and respond to requests and feedback from the WHS Partnership Panel

8.0 to review membership of local Steering Committees periodically

Monitor

9.0 to report on progress to the WHS Partnership Panel and provide necessary data for effective monitoring

10.0

Advocacy

11.0 to advance the public benefit of the WHS and ensure that the WHS status is used positively and sustainably to advantage those who live and work in and around it

12.0 to encourage a wider understanding of the WHS and its OUV especially through the development of educational opportunities and local involvement

Resources

13.0 to seek resources from the WHS Partnership Panel and initiate joint funding bids to third parties

14.0 Meet at least twice per year

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

Partnership Panel

Action Local Steering Committees

to coordinate and facilitate the preparation, review and update of WHS Management Plan and forward it to the State Party

to coordinate actions affecting both parts of the WHS and to oversee the work of the Coordination Unit

to review priorities set out in annual action plans agreed by Local Steering Committees and identify resources for their delivery

to appoint independent Chair of the WHS Partnership Panel

to liaise with and take account of expert advice from local Steering Committees

to gather information in connection with the monitoring of the WHS by the local Steering Committees, including advice on UNESCO Periodic Reporting

to prepare external reports on progress towards achievement of the objectives of the Management Plan

to be an advocate for the WHS at a strategic level both within their own organisations and externally

assist in identifying support and financial resources to take forward the actions of the Management Plan and ensure sufficient resources are available to provide sustainable coordination arrangements

Meet at least twice per year

The terms of reference will be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are effective and fit for purpose.


259

Appendix B

Role of the Chair of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel

Chair of Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage

Site Partnership Panel

ROLE SPECIFICATION

Role of Chair

1 To chair the Partnership Panel and ensure it carries out its role effectively within the World Heritage Site (WHS) Governance Structure in:

2 Assisting the Partnership Panel in setting strategic direction for the World Heritage agenda

3 Enabling the Partnership Panel to engage and encompass views of stakeholders

4 Contributing to the effective management of the World Heritage function

5 Safeguarding the good name of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

6 Representing the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site at regional and national meetings

7 Delivering the actions of the WHS Management Plans

8 Acting as a champion and advocate for Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

The Chair should be able to:

1 Demonstrate excellent communication skills at a senior level

2 Gain the confidence and respect of government departments and national agencies, especially the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage

3 Achieve consensus across a wide range of diverse interests

4 Develop and maintain networks of relevant senior national and international contacts

5 Be recognised as having knowledge, understanding and interest in UK Heritage, specifically that of Stonehenge and Avebury, without necessarily being an expert

6 Have considerable experience in chairing sensitive committees

7 Distil strategic issues of importance from high levels of detailed input

8 Be non-partisan while politically aware and diplomatic

9 Have considerable experience in media and public relations matters

10 Think creatively and exercise independent judgement

Other

1 The Chair will commit at least two days per month to the role. This will include bi-annual formal Partnership Panels (or more frequently if required), plus briefing sessions, Avebury Steering Committee, Stonehenge Steering Committee as appropriate and potential attendance at groups such as the World Heritage UK (WH:UK).

2 The Chair works closely with the WHS Coordinators, who are responsible for supporting the Partnership Panel and Steering Committees, including provision of a secretariat for Partnership Panel meetings and managing implementation of actions.

3 The term of the appointment is three years, potentially renewable for a second term. The position is not paid, but reasonable expenses will be met. The post is not open to current employees or the governing or advisory bodies of the three key partners: English Heritage, National Trust and Wiltshire Council or elected members of Wiltshire Council.

2014


Appendix C

Terms of reference and procedures of the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG)

1 Further the aims and objectives of the Stonehenge and Avebury Management Plans and the evolving joint WHS Management Plan through regular revision of the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework. The Avebury WHS Management Plan (2005) states [9.2.6] that the aim of the Research Agenda is to: ‘actively encourage sustainable levels of research into all periods and all relevant aspects of the WHS and its near environs, in order to improve archaeological understanding, to better inform other academics, and to allow informal archaeological resource management to take place.’ (This is also included in the AMP 2005 Action Plan, Objective Y.3: Assess and update the Avebury Research Agenda.)

2 Report regularly to the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS Steering Committees and WHS Partnership Panel matters relating to the understanding of the archaeology and history of the WHS with a view to supporting the Committees and Panel in making informed management decisions.

3 Provide a forum in which research topics and interests may be debated by individuals and organisations concerned with furthering the understanding of prehistoric and later Avebury and Stonehenge.

4 Enable individuals and organisations pursuing research into prehistoric and later Avebury and Stonehenge to refine and develop research proposals through discussion and so reduce overlap and the potential for duplication.

5 Enhance research into the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS by acting as an information exchange and facilitating contact between researchers in different subject, technical and chronological specialisms.

The Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical

Research Group (ASAHRG) exists to:

6 Support the Alexander Keiller Museum in maximising the use of collections for research for public benefit, so utilising a resource which is unique to the Avebury part of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

7 Support museums outside the WHS, and in particular the Wiltshire Museum in Devizes and Salisbury Museum, in researching and making publicly available material in their collections which is derived from the WHS.

8 Encourage the timely deposition of reports and publications in the HER and relevant museums.

9 Facilitate wider public dissemination of research through all means available, including publication (eg in journals, monographs and under the auspices of ASAHRG where practicable), lectures, improved interpretation, e-means or any others identified.

10 Facilitate contact between individuals and organisations planning and implementing research in both parts of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

11 Retain responsibility for the oversight and maintenance of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Research Framework.

12 Review and advise on project designs for archaeological and historical research to assist in setting and maintaining standards for research within the WHS.

13 Encourage the development of education and outreach opportunities related to research.

14 Support the sharing of knowledge and data between institutions, organisations and individuals.

15 Monitor and review the public impact/benefit of research.


261

Procedures

1 Chairs

AAHRG has throughout most of its history had two convenors rather than a single Chair. ASAHRG will have three revolving convenors or meeting chairs. It is suggested that each chair should be reviewed every three years, with an expectation of change (although no bar or time period is suggested for former chairs taking up a chair’s post in future). New meeting chairs will be nominated from the membership on the establishment of ASAHRG. This need not exclude current or previous convenors of AAHRG.

2 Membership

At present, membership should be open to anyone with an active involvement or interest in archaeological or historical research within the World Heritage Site and its near environs. The process for accepting new members will be particularly important to maintain the group at a workable size now that it includes both Avebury and Stonehenge.

In order to join ASAHRG new members will need to be nominated by two existing members who will act as their sponsor. Nominations should be made to the WHS Coordinator as the secretariat for ASAHRG. Guests/ observers may be invited to individual meetings by existing members following agreement with the secretariat. The opportunity for wider engagement is offered by the planned bi-annual public seminars.

Maintenance of the membership list would be by the WHS Coordinator who will send an annual email to the membership asking them to indicate a continuing wish to remain in the group. The WHS Coordinator would also be responsible for operating Data Protection Act protocols.

Initially those with an established research involvement at Stonehenge will be invited to join ASAHRG.

3 Support for the group (Minutes, circulation of

papers, agendas etc)

The WHS Coordinator will act as secretariat:

a Take minutes at the meetings and circulate them b Be responsible for Data Protection Act requirements c Check with host organisation prior to meetings d Maintain membership list e Maintain records relating to tenure of meeting chairs,

WHS Steering Committee representatives and be responsible for bringing them to the attention of the meetings.

4 Representation on the World Heritage Steering

Committee

a The Group will be represented on the WHS Steering Committees and Partnership Panel by one member, as at present. A deputy should be identified to attend in their absence. The representative and deputy will be chosen by majority opinion at a meeting of the Group. The representative should be involved in or have experience of research in both parts of the WHS. They should be independent. Employees or representatives of English Heritage, the National Trust and Wiltshire Council cannot be nominated. This accords with the policy regarding representation of Avebury and Stonehenge Steering Committees on the WHS Partnership Panel under the new governance arrangement agreed in 2013.

b The representative and deputy will be reviewed at least every two years by the Group. Representation will be reviewed at the first meeting of ASAHRG.

5 Once ASAHRG has been established there will be a probationary period of two years. The success of the joint group will be reviewed at this point. If the new joint group has not been able to function successfully, the option to set up a separate Stonehenge research group could be re-examined.

6 Agenda and frequency of meetings

A model agenda would be adopted (see Annex) by the Group and adhered to for ordinary meetings (ie excluding special purpose meetings such as workshops or seminars)

Each meeting should aim for a balanced focus between Avebury and Stonehenge

The Group would meet no fewer than three times a year. They will be half-day meetings; venues will rotate to reflect the joint Avebury and Stonehenge focus

The group should aim to hold bi-annual WHS archaeological and historical research seminars.


1. Liaison with World Heritage Site stakeholders

Promote the significance of the WHS to key partners Establish and maintain liaison arrangements with land-

owners, the National Trust, English Heritage, Natural England and the local community as well as other key partners involved in the implementation of the Manage-ment Plan and Research Agenda

Provide secretariat for the local Steering Committees, the WHS Partnership Panel and Avebury and Stone-henge Archaeological and Historical Research Group

Coordinate task and finish groups as required Engage with other WHS and professional networks to

develop best practice

2. Coordinating the implementation of the World

Heritage Site Management Plan

Develop and implement the annual action plan Develop and manage projects fulfilling the objectives of

the Management Plan Seek and negotiate funding and prepare grant

applications as required Facilitate Management Plan related projects led by WHS

partners Work with the English Heritage, National Trust and

partner museum education teams on WHS education projects

3. Communication and advocacy on the World

Heritage Site

Respond to queries about the WHS Manage the WHS website, twitter account and other

social media Provide information on the WHS to partners, students

and others through presentations and/or other means Encourage the use of the WHS logo Provide information through newsletters and/or other

formats to local residents and partners on the WHS relevant projects

4. Advice on projects affecting the World Heritage

Site in relation to Plan policies

Provide comments on planning applications affecting the WHS

Appendix D

The role of the World Heritage Site Coordination Unit

Comment on local development framework and any other strategic documents affecting the WHS or its setting

Provide WHS general advice as required

5. Monitoring the condition of the World Heritage

Site

Encourage partners to report on monitoring indicators agreed for the WHS

Coordinate the UNESCO Periodic Report every six years

6. Revision of the Management Plan

Regular update of the Management Plan during its life-time as required

Formal revision of the Management Plan around every six years in conjunction with partners

7. Staff and financial management

Manage administrative assistance and project staff Monitor the WHS budget Investigate funding opportunities for the WHS Coordinate annual progress report on the delivery of

the Management Plan with input from all partners


263

Appendix E

The WHS Management Plan public consultation process

1. Avebury WHS Management Plan Review 2012

a. Avebury WHS Management Plan Project Board

Initiation Meeting 27 January 2012

Membership:

Avebury WHS Officer Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group Avebury Parish Council English Heritage National Trust Natural England North Wessex Downs AONB Wiltshire Council Economic Development and Planning Wiltshire Council Archaeology Service

b. Avebury WHS Stakeholder

Workshop 24 May 2012

(see delegate list below)

c. Professional focus groups

(August–September 2012):

Conservation: monuments, Setting and Natural Environment

Access, sustainable tourism and visitor managementInterpretation, education, community engagement

Planning policy and management Traffic and Parking

Research/GIS /Data

d. Public drop-in sessions July 2012:

Marlborough Library Avebury Social Centre

2. Stonehenge WHS Management Plan Review 2013

a. Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management

Plan Project Board

First Joint Meeting 23 July 2013

Membership:

Amesbury Town Council Avebury Parish Council Avebury Archaeological Historical Research Group Avebury WHS Officer English Heritage Ministry of Defence/DIO National Trust Natural England Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Stonehenge WHS Coordinator Wiltshire Council, Archaeology Service Wiltshire Council, Economic Development and Planning

b. Stonehenge WHS Stakeholder

Workshop 23 September 2013

(see delegate list below)

c. Professional focus groups

(October–December 2013):

Conservation: monuments, setting, natural environment Access, sustainable tourism and visitor management Interpretation and education Community engagement Planning policy and management Traffic and transport Research/GIS/Data

d Public drop-in session

(October – November 2013)

. Amesbury Library Bowman Centre, Amesbury Larkhill Durrington Shrewton Village Salisbury Library


3. Public Consultation

a. Public consultation launched 8 December 2014

for a period of 12 weeks

b. Public Consultation announced through

the following channels:

Newspaper advertising Press release Chairman’s announcement at Community Area Board Meetings Wiltshire Council parish newsletter Community Area Board e-newsletter Communicated to around 15,000 people by email on a community email list held by Wiltshire Council Wiltshire Council website Wiltshire Council consultation portal Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website @StoneAveWHS twitter account WHS partners websites and social media

c. Copies available for viewing at all Wiltshire

Council Libraries and in addition at:

County Hall, Trowbridge Snuff Street, Devizes 27–29 Milford Street, Salisbury Monkton Park Offices, Chippenham

d. Public exhibitions were held at the

following locations:

Salisbury Library 13 January 2015 Avebury Social Centre 15 January 2015 Amesbury Library 16 January 2015 County Hall, Trowbridge 21 January 2015 Swindon Central Library 23 January 2015 Marlborough Library 28 January 2015 Approximately140 number of people attended

these events

e. An online survey was conducted with the

following questions:

1. The Management Plan has a number of high level priorities. We would like to know which priorities are most important to you. (Please tick up to four boxes only)

2. The Management Plan has 8 overall aims. We would like to see whether you agree with these aims.

3. If you disagree to any of the aims above can you tell us why this is?

4. Of the 8 aims outlined which do you think should be the highest priorities? (Please tick up to four boxes only)

5. Are there any issues related to the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS that you believe have not been covered in the 2015 Management Plan?

6. If you answered yes to question 5 what are these issues?7. Taken overall, is the Management Plan broadly

acceptable?8. Do you have any other comments you would wish to

make?

f. 62 people completed the survey and the results

were as follows:

1. The Management Plan has a number of high level priorities. We would like to know which priorities are most important to you.

62.1% Protect buried archaeology from ploughing and enhance the setting of sites and monuments by maintaining and extending permanent wildlife-rich grassland and managing woodland and scrub

32.8% Protect monuments from damage from visitor pressure and burrowing animals

48.3% Reduce the dominance and negative impact of roads and traffic and ensure any improvements to the A303 support this

29.3% Improve the interpretation and enhance the visitor experience of the wider landscape

50.0% Ensure any development is consistent with the protection and where appropriate enhancement of the monuments and their settings and the wider WHS landscape and its setting

32.8% Spread the economic benefits related to the WHS to the community and the county

41.4% Encourage local community engagement with the WHS

41.4% Encourage sustainable archaeological research and education to improve and communicate the understanding of the WHS

2. The Management Plan has 8 overall aims. We would like to see whether you agree with these aims.

Strongly Agree/Agree

Aim 1 51%

Aim 2 72%

Aim 3 72%

Aim 4 80%

Aim 5 85%

Aim 6 61%

Aim 7 75%

Aim 8 77%


265

3. Of the 8 aims outlined which do you think should be the highest priorities?

(Please tick up to 4 boxes only)

Aim 1 11%

Aim 2 37%

Aim 3 33%

Aim 4 60%

Aim 5 60%

Aim 6 47%

Aim 7 40%

Aim 8 40%

g. In addition 16 people sent in comments by email and letter.

h. All comments were logged and responses made by the WHS Coordination Unit. These were finalised on 25 March 2015 by the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan Project Board. Changes made to the consultation draft as a result of the consultation process have been recorded and are available from the WHS Coordination Unit on request.

i. The final text was approved by the two local Steering Committees on 9 and 10 April 2015.


Council of British Druid Orders (COBDO)

Country Land and Business Association (CLA)

Durrington Town Council (DTC)

Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council (FWOPC)

International Council on Monuments and Sites UK (ICOMOS UK)

Landowners and Farmers

Local Communities and residents’ associations

Marlborough Downs Nature Improvement Area

National Farmers Union (NFU)

National Trust (NT)

Prehistoric Society (PS)

Public Transport and Tour Operators

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Salisbury Museum (SM)

Shrewton Parish Council (SPC)

Society of Antiquaries of London (SAL)

South West Tourism Alliance (SWTA)

Universities with Archaeology or Heritage Management Departments

Visit Britain

Visit England

VisitWiltshire (VW)

Wilsford cum Lake Parish Council (WLPC)

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS)

Winterbourne Monkton Parish Council (WMPC)

Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council (WSPC)

Woodford Parish Council (WPC)

World Heritage UK (WHUK)

Appendix F

Bodies with an interest in the WHS

List A: Public bodies with a statutory or management interest

Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)


Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Department for Transport (DfT)

Environment Agency (EA)

Forestry Commission (FC)

English Heritage (EH)

Highways Agency (HA)

Historic England (HE)

Ministry of Defence (MOD)

Natural England (NE)

North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWDAONB)

United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (UNESCO UK)

Wiltshire Police (WP)

Wiltshire Council (WC)

List B: Other Public and Private bodies with an interest in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

Amesbury Town Council (ATC)

Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG)

Avebury Environs Group (AEG)

Avebury Parish Council (APC)

Avebury Society

Ancient Sacred Landscape Network (ASLaN)

Council for British Archaeology (CBA)

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)


267

Appendix G

Reports and decisions from the World Heritage Committee and Bureau referring to Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

10th session of the World Heritage Bureau, June 1986 Consideration of Nomination(CC-86/CONF.001/11): Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites United Kingdom C373 C(i)(ii)(iii)

The Bureau requested the United Kingdom authorities to study possible solutions to the problem of the A344 main road crossing the avenue at Stonehenge (detour, digging of a tunnel, etc.). It would be desirable for the Committee to be informed of the progress of these studies at its next meeting.

By a letter of 13 October 1986, the Department of the Environment has informed the Secretariat that new plans, which would enable the A344 road to be closed, were under preparation.

10th session of the World Heritage Committee, November 1986 Inscription (CC-86/CONF. 003/10): Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites United Kingdom

The Committee noted with satisfaction the assurances provided by the authorities of the United Kingdom that the closure of the road which crosses the avenue at Stonehenge was receiving serious consideration as part of the overall plans for the future management of the site.

11th session of the World Heritage Committee, November 1987 (SC-87/CONF.005/9):

In accordance with the procedure foreseen, the Committee should draw up the list of the first fifty cultural properties which should be monitored in 1988 (1).The Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage then proceeded to present those cases in which the Secretariat had recently intervened concerning World Heritage cultural properties for which the Secretariat had received information on the state of conservation. The Secretariat had received replies which indicated that the States had taken the necessary measures to respond to the problems raised. Such was the case for Angra do Heroismo in the Azores and the Monastery of the Hieronymites in Lisbonne, Portugal, Giza in Egypt, Auschwitz

in Poland and for Cregneash and Stonehenge in the United Kingdom.

16th session of the World Heritage Bureau, July 1992 (WHC-92/CONF.003/2):

59. The representative of ICOMOS reported to the Bureau on the cultural sites he had monitored. A more detailed report accompanied by slide projections will be made during the Santa Fe session in December 1992 for all the cases mentioned. The properties in question are: Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation), Monastery of Rila (Bulgaria), Budapest (Hungary) and Stonehenge (United Kingdom). With regard to the site of Stonehenge, the ICOMOS Representative mentioned the problem of tourist pressure and the deviation of the road A344. A more detailed report will be submitted at the next session of the Committee at Santa Fe.

16th session of the World Heritage Committee, November 1992 (WHC-92/CONF.002/12, Item VIII):

Concerning Stonehenge, the ICOMOS representative provided all the details on the management of the site as well as on the anticipated projects for improvement, including that of a museum site. The ICOMOS recommended to the World Heritage Centre to write to the authorities in the United Kingdom in order to support the measures undertaken for the management of Stonehenge.

18th session of the World Heritage Bureau, July 1994 (WHC-94/CONF.001/10):

This site which was inscribed in 1986 is threatened by the path of the A303 motorway through the southern part of the site. At the request of the Observer of the United Kingdom, a communication prepared by the concerned authorities was brought to the attention of the Bureau. Two proposals for the organization of the site will be discussed on 8 July 1994 at a meeting organized by The English Heritage and the National Trust, in which the representatives of the Ministry of Transportation and international experts will participate. The first foresees the construction of a tunnel which would be dug under the site. The second foresees the creation of an access bridge for visitors at the eastern end of the site which would be linked to an observation station on the top of the hill dominating Stonehenge. The first option is by far the most costly.

The Bureau took note of this information and expressed the wish that a satisfactory project could be undertaken as soon as possible.


22nd session of the World Heritage Bureau, June 1998 (WHC-98/CONF.201/3B,201/9): Reports on the state of conservation of properties

inscribed on the World Heritage List (WHC-98/

CONF.201/3B:)

In response to an enquiry by the Secretariat, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the United Kingdom provided information on the most recent planning proposals for Stonehenge. It is now proposed that a new visitor’s centre be located at ‘Fargo North’, which lies to the west of the Stones, that the A344 road, which currently passes close to the Stones, be closed and that the A303 road becomes a tunnel over a length of two kilometres. It is further announced that English Heritage is considering to proceed with the preparation of a management plan for Stonehenge.

The report was transmitted to ICOMOS, which will report its findings to the Bureau during its session.

Decision required: The Bureau, based on the report of ICOMOS that will be presented at its session, may recommend appropriate actions to the consideration of the State Party and the Committee.

Report of the Rapporteur on the 22nd session of the

Bureau of the World Heritage Committee: (WHC-

98/CONF.201/9)

V.70 The Bureau expressed its satisfaction with the management and presentation proposals for the Stonehenge World Heritage site. It stressed, however, the need for the closure of the road passing close to the monument, foreseen when the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1986 and for the completion of a management plan with the minimum delay.

24th session of the World Heritage Bureau, July 2000 (WHC-2000/CONF.202/17)

IV.76 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had received a Management Plan for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, prepared under the direction of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Planning Group (comprising national and local organizations) and chaired by an English Heritage Commissioner. ICOMOS congratulated the Government of the United Kingdom for this management plan for what is a very complex site. It recommended that careful evaluation and assessment be undertaken in each stage of the process of implementation. The Delegate of Hungary commended

the high quality of the plan and indicated that Hungary was already using this plan as a model. The Bureau congratulated the Government of the United Kingdom for the preparation of this high quality management plan and took note of the intention of the Government to follow the recommendation made by ICOMOS.

25th extraordinary session of the Bureau, December 2001 (WHC.2001/CONF.208/04):

III.207 The Bureau noted the information received from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the United Kingdom emphasizing that in order to improve the site’s setting, the Government proposes to remove two roads from the immediate vicinity of the monument. In this regard, it is proposed that the A303 road run through a 2km tunnel near the stone circle, whilst the other road (A344) should be closed and converted to grass. It is also proposed that the present rather poor visitor facilities and car park should be removed and that a new visitor centre (with car parking and interpretative facilities) should be built a short distance away, outside the site. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport underlined in its letter that all these proposals will be subject to examination under normal planning procedures and that full consideration will be given to the overall archaeological and environmental implications. ICOMOS informed the Secretariat that it was in full agreement with the proposals and that the cut-and-cover tunnel is a feasible project that will not cause any damage to the archaeology and the environment on the site.

III.208 Concerning Silbury Hill, part of the World Heritage site, the Secretariat has been informed by numerous letters that the site was threatened by collapse. The State Party informed the Centre that the present problem has been caused by the collapse of the filling of a vertical shaft. In May 2000, a squared-shaped hole about 1.8m wide opened up to a depth of just over 10m. This was covered immediately with a scaffolding cover. However, before any plan could be implemented further collapse occurred. Under these circumstances, English Heritage decided to commission a seismic survey, but this was delayed due to the fact that the Hill was situated within an area infected by Foot and Mouth Disease. The State Party informed the Secretariat that appropriate action is being taken to repair Silbury Hill and safeguard it from further damage. Furthermore, ICOMOS informed the Secretariat that the existence of the pit at the top of the Hill had been known for many years and it was not considered a threat to stability until it began to widen under the impact of the unusually heavy rainfall


269

earlier this year. ICOMOS is of the opinion that both the technical and archaeological problems are being addressed as matters of urgency and that the long-term future of the monument is not threatened.

III.209 The British Ministry of Culture has informed the Secretariat that the seismic survey commissioned for Silbury had been carried out, and that its results which are presently being analysed, will be transmitted to the Centre together with proposals for the restoration of the monument, as soon as possible.

III.210 The Bureau noted the information transmitted by the State Party concerning the planning and protection of the site of Stonehenge. The Bureau also noted the views of the State Party and ICOMOS on Silbury Hill which is part of the World Heritage site. It requested the State Party to work in close consultation with the Centre and ICOMOS regarding the planning and protection of the site and to present a progress report to the Bureau at its next session in April 2002.

26th session of the World Heritage Bureau, April 2002 (WHC-02/CONF.201/15): Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (United Kingdom)

XII.108 The report submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sports of the United Kingdom informed that management plans are in place for both parts of the site. Concerning Stonehenge, the report stated that an application for planning consent for the visitor centre will be submitted during the summer of 2002 while the highways consent procedure will be initiated in December 2002. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are foreseen for both projects. With regard to Silbury Hill, English Heritage is continuing to make progress in securing its goal of ensuring the long-term conservation of this large prehistoric man-made mound. A programme of on-site works was completed by early October 2001 and involved both the temporary capping of the hole and the execution of a seismic survey of the Hill, with the aim of identifying zones of structural weakness. The survey will provide additional information as to the original construction of the Hill and subsequent archaeological interventions. In addition to the survey work, English Heritage has been carrying out further studies of topographical and written sources and will assess whether any further investigations are necessary and whether further physical works, if any, may be required to ensure the long-term conservation of the Hill.

XII.109 The Bureau noted the information transmitted by the State Party concerning the planning and the protection of the site of Stonehenge as well as the protective works carried out at Silbury Hill. The Bureau congratulated the State Party for the work done on the two management plans of Stonehenge and Avebury respectively. The Bureau expressed its satisfaction regarding the temporary protective works undertaken by the State Party in view of the long-term conservation of Silbury Hill. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to continue the works in close consultation with ICOMOS and the Centre, and requested the authorities to present a progress report in time for its next session in April 2003.

26th session of the World Heritage Committee, June 2002 (WHC-02/CONF.202/25, 202/2, 202/17):

The Chairperson noted the Committee’s consensus on the draft decision and declared it adopted.

The World Heritage Committee,

Takes note of the state of conservation report and the decision of the Bureau contained in document WHC–02/CONF.202/2, paragraph XII, 108-109.

27th session of the World Heritage Committee, July 2003 (WHC-03/27.COM/7B.82 and 7B Corr):


1. Taking note of the changes made to the construction technique for the tunnel;

2. Welcomes the State Party’s decision to construct a bored tunnel, which is less damaging for the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage property than a cut-and-cover tunnel;

3. Noting that the Environmental Impact Assessment of the road improvements to the A303 are available on the web site www.highways.gsi.gov.uk;

4. Requests the State Party to provide a progress report to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.


28th session of the World Heritage Committee, July 2004 (WHC-04/28.COM/15B.102):

The World Heritage Committee.

1. Noting that the State Party did not provide a progress report by the deadline of 1 February 2004 as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session in 2003 (Decision 27 COM 7B.82), but it was only provided on 7 May and its revised version on 28 May 2004;

2. Notes the progress with the A303 Stonehenge Improvement Road and the proposals for a new visitor centre;

3. Welcomes the opportunity given to the public to make their views known in the decision making process concerning the A303 road construction through a Public Inquiry;

4. Requests that the Inspector’s Report of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement Inquiry and details of the Visitor Centre planning application be provided to the World Heritage Centre;

5. Further requests the State Party to provide an update report by 1 February 2005 to the World Heritage Centre in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 29th session in 2005.

29th session of the World Heritage Committee, July 2007 Extract of the Decisions:


1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.102, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Expresses its concerns on the fact that no progress in resolving the controversy over the ‘A303 Stonehenge Improvement’ scheme has been made;

4. Takes note of the planning application for the visitor centre;

5. Requests once again that the Inspector’s Report of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement Inquiry be Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009

6. Requests the State Party of the United Kingdom to provide the World Heritage Centre with an updated report by 1 February 2007, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session (2007).

XII.109 The Bureau noted the information transmitted by the State Party concerning the planning and the protection of the site of Stonehenge as well as the protective works carried out at Silbury Hill. The Bureau congratulated the State Party for the work done on the two management plans of Stonehenge and Avebury respectively. The Bureau expressed its satisfaction regarding the temporary protective works undertaken by the State Party in view of the long-term conservation of Silbury Hill. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to continue the works in close consultation with ICOMOS and the Centre, and requested the authorities to present a progress report in time for its next session in April 2003.

31st session of the World Heritage Committee, July 2007Extract from the Decision 31 COM 7B.104:


1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 29 COM 7B.88, adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),

3. Commends the national authorities for having improved the protection of archaeological sites by reversion of arable to grassland;

4. Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with the approved project for the visitor centre, and encourages the State Party to advance the implementation of the visitor centre in order to preserve and improve the integrity of the property;

5. Regrets that there has been no progress made in the implementation of the ‘A303 Stonehenge Improvement’ scheme, and urges the State Party to find an appropriate solution compatible with the outstanding universal value of the property;

6. Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with a detailed report by 1 February 2008 on progress made in the selection process of the ‘A303 Stonehenge Improvement’ scheme, for examination by the Committee at its 32nd session in 2008.


271

32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, July 2008Extract from the Decision 32 COM 7B.114,

32 COM 8B.71 and 32 COM 8B.93:

State of Conservation Decision (32 COM 7B.114)



2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.104, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Also recalling that at the time of the inscription of the property in 1986 the Committee noted with satisfaction the assurances provided by the authorities of the United Kingdom that the closure of the road which crosses the avenue at Stonehenge (A344 road) was receiving serious consideration as part of the overall plans for the future management of the property;

4. Regrets that further delays have taken place in the long overdue improvements to visitor access to the Stonehenge part of the property, to its presentation to visitors, and to the setting of the monuments;

5. Urges the State Party to address the issues above in priority;

6. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a progress report on the closure of the road, visitor management and access, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

Decision: 32 COM 8B.71


1. Having examined Documents WHC-08/32.COM/8B.Add and WHC-08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add,

2. Approves the minor modification to the boundaries of Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites, United Kingdom.

Decision on Statement of Significance (32 COM 8B.93)


1. Having examined Documents WHC- 08/32.COM/8B.Add and WHC-08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add.

2. Adopts the following Statement of Significance for Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites, United Kingdom:

For full text see Part One Section 2.0 of this Plan

3. Recommends that assessment for statements of authenticity and integrity/statements of protection and management should be postponed to the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee (2009) awaiting adoption of a methodology and an agreed format for Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for inscribed properties.

33rd session of the World Heritage Committee June 2009 Committee Decision 33 COM 7B.129:



2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7B.114, adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Regrets that the State Party continues to make little progress in the urgent resolution of the significant A344 road closures and visitor facility issues at the property, despite assurances made as long ago as 1986;

4. Requests that the State Party keeps the World Heritage Centre informed of any progress, particularly the Ministerial announcement, as it occurs;

5. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011 a report on progress made on the road closure and visitor facilities, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

35th session of the World Heritage Committee June 2011 Committee Decisions 35 COM 7B.116:



2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.129, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Acknowledges the measures taken in the resolution of the road closure and the visitor facilities issues, in particular the approval of the English Heritage Full Planning Application by Wiltshire Council in June 2010;


4. Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with details of the location and plans of the proposed visitor centre for evaluation by ICOMOS;

5. Notes that the funding for the implementation of the development project has almost been ensured;

6. Also requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre informed about any development related to the road closure and the visitor facilities and to report any implementation activities within the Periodic Reporting exercise to be launched in 2012.

37th session of the World Heritage Committee June 2013 Committee Decisions 37 COM 8E Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value


1. Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8E and WHC-13/37.COM/8E.Add,

2. Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties: [List of other countries outside of the UK omitted]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Blaenavon Industrial Landscape; Blenheim Palace; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine’s Abbey, and St Martin’s Church; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; City of Bath; Durham Castle and Cathedral; Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast; Heart of Neolithic Orkney; Ironbridge Gorge; Maritime Greenwich; New Lanark; Old and New Towns of Edinburgh; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey; Tower of London; St Kilda; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret’s Church;

(The full Statement of Outstanding Universal Value adopted in 2013 is included in Part 2 of the Management Plan)


273

time, a Statement of Significance (see Stonehenge Management Plan 2009, (26–27) and a Statement of OUV for the WHS have been drawn up. The World Heritage Site requires protection and where appropriate enhancement in order to sustain its OUV. Not all aspects of the Site contribute to OUV and the UNESCO Statements of Significance and Statement of OUV as well as the World Heritage Site Plans for Stonehenge and Avebury are a critical resource in reaching decisions relating to the significance of its elements for identification of the attributes of OUV as well as other important aspects of the WHS, and for reaching decisions on the effective protection and management of the Site.

6.139 In summary, the World Heritage Site is internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments. The two stone circles at Stonehenge and Avebury, together with inter-related monuments, and their associated landscapes, demonstrate Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and mortuary practices through 2,000 years of continuous use and monument building. The excellent survival of monuments provides evidence of the creative and technological achievements of

1.0 Wiltshire Core Strategy

In addition the following paragraphs refer to the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS within the Wiltshire Council Core Strategy:

6.137 Wiltshire’s World Heritage Site (WHS) is a designated heritage asset of the highest international and national significance. The United Kingdom, as a signatory to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972) is obliged to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations its World Heritage Sites which, because of their exceptional qualities are considered to be of Outstanding Universal Value. This obligation should therefore be given precedence in decisions concerning development management in the WHS. World Heritage Site status offers the potential of considerable social and economic gains in areas such as sustainable tourism; however this will require careful and sensitive management in order to protect the Site and sustain its OUV.

6.138 The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list in 1986 for its OUV. Since that

Appendix H

Local planning policies of relevance to Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site will be sustained by:

i. Giving precedence to the protection of the World Heritage Site and its setting

ii. Development not adversely affecting the World Heritage Site and its attributes of OUV. This includes the physical fabric, character, appearance, setting or views into or out of the World Heritage Site

iii. Seeking opportunities to support and maintain the positive management of the World Heritage Site through development that delivers improved conservation, presentation and interpretation and reduces the negative impacts of roads, traffic and visitor pressure

Core Policy 59: The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site

iv. Requiring developments to demonstrate that full account has been taken of their impact upon the World Heritage Site and its setting. Proposals will need to demonstrate that the development will have no individual, cumulative or consequential adverse effect upon the site and its OUV. Consideration of opportunities for enhancing the World Heritage Site and sustaining its OUV should also be demonstrated. This will include proposals for climate change mitigation and renewable energy schemes.

The Wiltshire Core Strategy contains a specific World Heritage Site Policy.


the period. Their careful design in relation to the astronomical alignments, topography and other monuments provides further insight while their continuing prominence today underlines how this period of monument building shaped the landscape. The World Heritage Site is a landscape without parallel at a national and international level and one of Wiltshire’s highest quality environments.

6.140 The setting of the World Heritage Site beyond its designated boundary also requires protection as inappropriate development here can have an adverse impact on the Site and its attributes of OUV. The setting is the surrounding in which the World Heritage Site is experienced. It includes a range of elements such as views and historical, landscape and cultural relationships. The setting of the World Heritage Site is not precisely defined and will vary depending on the nature and visibility of the proposal. A future setting study will provide further information and a preferred methodology for the assessment of proposed development for its potential impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV. Light pollution and skyglow which could adversely affect the OUV of the site must be adequately addressed through the careful management of development.

6.141 The World Heritage Site consists of two areas of approximately 25 square kilometres centred on Stonehenge and Avebury. Each area has its own discrete landscape setting. Core Policy 59 covers both halves of the World Heritage Site which have similar requirements for protection and enhancement. Saved local plan policies (policies TR6, TR8 and TR9 of the Kennet Local Plan 2011) and Core Policy 6 (Stonehenge) reflect the specific local context, opportunities and challenges for the different halves of the World Heritage Site. Additional separate management plans set out strategies and actions needed for the successful conservation and management of the site in order to sustain its OUV, taking account of and including tourism, farming, nature conservation, research, education and the quality of life of the community. These management plans are a key material consideration in the planning process, which has a major role in their implementation. Indicators to monitor the implementation of the actions identified appear in both management plans.

6.142 In considering Core Policy 59 particular reference should be made to the statement of OUV for the

World Heritage Site and the relevant World Heritage Site Management Plan (70). Applicants will be required to demonstrate that full account has been taken of the impact of the proposals upon the World Heritage Site and its setting and that those proposals will have no adverse effects upon the site and its attributes of OUV. Development proposals which fall within the World Heritage Site boundary, or potentially impact upon its setting, should convey this accountability principally within the design and access statement related to the proposal.

6.143 Due consideration should be given to environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations which list World Heritage Sites as among the ‘sensitive areas’ where lower thresholds apply to the assessment of the need for EIA. The recent ICOMOS guidance on heritage impact assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (2010) offers advice on the process of historic impact assessment (HIA) for cultural World Heritage Sites which is designed to assess impact on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.

6.144 Additional planning guidance will be developed to help ensure the effective implementation of Core Policy 59 (72). Based on the management plans and additional studies required, additional guidance will assist in articulating the spatial implications of protecting and enhancing the World Heritage Site and its setting in order to sustain its OUV both within the World Heritage Site and its setting. This will include considering the use of further Article 4 Directions to address permitted development rights that may have an adverse effect on the WHS and its attributes of OUV.


275

3.0 Other elements of the Wiltshire Core Strategy related to the WHS

The following are extracts from the Core Strategy which relate to the WHS. For the full text of policies refer to the Core Strategy 2015 available on Wiltshire Council website.

3.1 Strategic objective 5: protecting and enhancing the natural, historic and built environment.

3.9 Wiltshire contains some outstanding built heritage which is an important asset to be safeguarded and which should be reflected in new development. Well designed developments help to provide a sense of place, add to local distinctiveness and promote community cohesiveness and social well-being. New development will need to respect and enhance Wiltshire’s distinctive characteristics. Wiltshire also has a rich historic environment, including the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and numerous sites of archaeological importance. These sites will be protected from inappropriate development and in the cae of the World Heritage Site, controlled in a way which sustains its outstanding universal value.

Policy TR6

Tourist facilities in the Avebury World Heritage

Site

Within the Avebury World Heritage Site tourist facilities will only be permitted where they promote the enjoyment, understanding or interpretation of the historic sites and monuments.

Development for these purposes will be required to:-

1. avoid adverse effects upon any monument or its setting;

2. respect the amenities of existing residents; and

3. contribute positively to the management of visitor pressures, in support of the Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan.

Policy TR8

Visitor accommodation in the Avebury World

Heritage Site

Within the Avebury World Heritage Site the change of use or conversion of existing buildings to provide (a) hostel accommodation or (b) hotel accommodation that includes budget accommodation and study facilities will be permitted provided that:-

1. the development respects the archaeological landscape and other characteristics of its surroundings;

2. any archaeological remains are protected in situ; and

3. the buildings lie within an established building group.

The following policies apply to the Avebury part of the WHS. They have been saved from the Kennet Local Plan and will be incorporated into the Wiltshire Core Strategy following its review:

Policy TR9

Car parking in the Avebury World Heritage Site

Proposals for a car park off the A4361 to the north side of the Henge, or other small car parks which would disperse visitor pressure within the Avebury World Heritage Site will be permitted where the proposal:

1. would not result in a significant net increase in the number of formal car parking spaces within the World Heritage Site;

2. would not be detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety;3. would not have a detrimental impact upon any

monument or its setting; and4. would not have an adverse impact upon landscape

character.

2.0 Saved Policies

Key Outcomes

The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and its setting will have been protected from inappropriate development in order to sustain its outstanding universal value.


5.28 A new Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan was published in January 2009. The Plan provides a long-term strategy to protect the World Heritage Site for present and future generations. The primary aim of the Plan is to sustain the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site by protection, conservation and presentation of the archaeological landscape. The Management Plan sets out many objectives for the World Heritage Site, such as improving the setting of Stonehenge and other prehistoric monuments, provide new visitor facilities, improving interpretation and access, and promoting sustainable transport. The plan was endorsed in July 2009 by Wiltshire Council as a material consideration in determining planning applications affecting the Stonehenge half of the WHS and its setting.

5.29 Large numbers of overseas visitors, as well as domestic tourists, consider Stonehenge a “must see” attraction. However there is a lack of capital made on this unique opportunity locally. There is little evidence of the attraction having any real economic benefit for Amesbury or the surrounding villages. The presence of linked trips or tourists deciding to stay in the surrounding villages is all but absent.

5.30 Wiltshire Council will continue to be active partners in seeking a long term solution which mitigates the impacts of the roads, delivers a greatly enhanced visitor experience and returns the World Heritage Site to a more tranquil chalk downland setting appropriate to its status.

5.31 Core Policy 6 sets criteria for development affecting the World Heritage Site.

3.2 Area Strategies

3.2.1 Amesbury Area Strategy

Issues and considerations

5.19 Specific issues to be addressed in planning for the Amesbury Community Area, include:

The A303 corridor runs through the area and is a main arterial route from London to the south west. It suffers from problems, with intermittent stretches of single lane carriageway causing large delays at peak times. This has a knock-on effect on the attractiveness of the area for business and tourism investment. Studies have confirmed the need to overcome these problems by dualling the A303 along its length. Wiltshire Council will work collaboratively with agencies, such as the Highways Agency, the Department of Transport and English Heritage, to try and achieve an acceptable solution to the dualling of the A303 that does not adversely affect the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its setting

Delivery of improved visitor facilities at Stonehenge. The council will also continue to work with partners to ensure that any future improvements to the A303 do not compromise this important World Heritage Site (WHS)

An acceptable solution to the need for dualling the A303 is needed, which must incorporate environmental measures to avoid adverse impacts upon the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. In 2007 the Government identified a bored tunnel as the only acceptable solution to this.

The World Heritage Site will be protected from inappropriate development both within the Site and in its setting so as to sustain its OUV in accordance with Core Policy 59

Core Policy 6: Stonehenge

The World Heritage Site and its setting will be protected so as to sustain its Outstanding Universal Value in accordance with Core Policy 59.

New visitor facilities will be supported where they: i. Return Stonehenge to a more respectful setting

befitting its World Heritage Site status

ii. Include measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the roads

iii. Introduce a greatly enhanced visitor experience in a high quality visitor centre

iv. Implement an environmentally sensitive method of

managing visitors to and from Stonehenge

v. Include a tourist information element, which highlights other attractions and facilities on offer in the surrounding area and raises the profile of Wiltshire.


277

How will the Amesbury Community Area change

by 2026?

5.22 Through working with partners, especially English Heritage and the National Trust, a lasting solution to the long term stewardship of Stonehenge will have been realised, returning the monument to a setting more respectful of its status as an international icon and delivering tangible economic benefits. The other objectives of the 2009 Management Plan, such as improving access to the World Heritage Site, developing sustainable transport and improving the conservation of archaeological sites, will have been realised.

3.2.2 Calne Area Strategy


5.42 Specific issues to be addressed in planning for the Calne Community Area, include:

The eastern part of the Calne Community Area borders the Avebury section of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site. It is therefore important that future development is sensitive to the setting of the World Heritage Site.

3.2.3 Devizes Area Strategy


5.65 Specific issues to be addressed in planning for the Devizes Community Area, include:

The north eastern section of the Devizes Community Area borders the Avebury section of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and contains a number of its attributes of outstanding universal value. Development will be particularly sensitive to these and the setting of the World Heritage Site.

3.2.4 Marlborough Area Strategy

Spatial information and context

5.72 The Marlborough Community Area lies within an area of high quality landscape which is entirely within the North Wessex Downs AONB and includes the settlement of Avebury, which together with its surrounding landscape, forms part of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site.

The strategy for the Marlborough Area

5.74 The strategy for the Marlborough Community area will be to deliver housing growth appropriate to the scale of the town to help maintain and enhance

Marlborough’s role as a service and tourist centre; and help to meet local needs. Development will be planned to ensure minimal impact upon Marlborough’s rich built, historic and landscape assets and to afford protection of the World Heritage Site and its setting.


5.75 Specific issues to be addressed in planning for the Marlborough Community Area, include:

The World Heritage Site will be protected from inappropriate development both within the Site and in its setting so as to sustain its OUV in accordance with Core Policy 59.

3.3 Core Policy 41: Sustainable construction and

low carbon energy

6.34 Core Policy 41 identifies how sustainable construction and low-carbon energy will be integral to all new development in Wiltshire...

...In meeting the requirements of the policy, proposals will need to be sensitive to potential impacts on landscape, in particular the AONBs and the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and its setting. Core Policies 51 (landscape) and 59 (the Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites World Heritage Site and its setting) should be considered alongside Core Policy 41.

3.4 Core Policy 42: Standalone renewable

energy installations

6.38 The development of most standalone renewable energy installations within Wiltshire will require careful consideration due to their potential visual and landscape impacts, especially in designated or sensitive landscapes, including AONBs and the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and their setting. Core policies 51 and 59, which relate to landscape and the World Heritage Site, should be considered alongside this policy. The size, location and

Core Policy 41

In all cases, including those listed above, proposals relating to historic buildings, Listed Buildings and buildings within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites should ensure that appropriate sensitive approaches and materials are used. Safeguarding of the significance of heritage assets should be in accordance with appropriate national policy and established best practice.


design of renewable energy schemes should be informed by a landscape character assessment, alongside other key environmental issues as set out in Core Policy 42. This should help reduce the potential for conflict and delay when determining planning applications. Cumulative effects should be addressed as appropriate.

3.5 Core Policy 51: Landscape

6.73 Another challenge is to allow for appropriate development while having full regard to the conservation and enhancement objectives of the most highly valued landscapes including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), New Forest National Park (NFNP) and the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site (WHS).

6.77 Development affecting the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and its setting should be considered in light of Core Policy 59 while any development in the setting of the Bath World Heritage Site should have regard to the findings of the Bath World Heritage Site Setting Study (2009) and any associated Supplementary Planning Document as a material planning consideration.

3.6 Core Policy 58: Ensuring the conservation of

the historic environment

6.129 Core Policy 58 aims to ensure that Wiltshire’s important monuments, sites and landscapes and areas of historic and built heritage significance are protected and enhanced in order that they continue to make an important contribution to Wiltshire’s environment and quality of life.

Core Policy 42

Proposals for standalone renewable energy schemes will be supported subject to satisfactory resolution of all site specific constraints. In particular, proposals will need to demonstrate how impacts on the following factors have been satisfactorily assessed, including any cumulative effects, and taken into account:

v. the historic environment including the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site and its setting

Applicants will not be required to justify the overall need for renewable energy development, either in a national or local context.

Core Policy 51: Landscape

Development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character and must not have a harmful impact upon landscape character, while any negative impacts must be mitigated as far as possible through sensitive design and landscape measures.

Proposals should be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive character areas identified in the relevant Landscape Character Assessment(s) and any other relevant assessments and studies. In particular, proposals will need to demonstrate that the following aspects of landscape character have been conserved and where possible enhanced through sensitive design, landscape mitigation and enhancement measures:

i. The locally distinctive pattern and species composition of natural features such as trees, hedgerows, woodland, field boundaries, watercourses and waterbodies

ii. The locally distinctive character of settlements and their landscape settings

iii. The separate identity of settlements and the transition between man-made and natural landscapes at the urban fringe

iv. Visually sensitive skylines, soils, geological and topographical features

v. Landscape features of cultural, historic and heritage value

vi. Important views and visual amenity

vii. Tranquillity and the need to protect against intrusion from light pollution, noise, and motion

viii. Landscape functions including places to live, work, relax and recreate, and

ix. Special qualities of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and the New Forest National Park, where great weight will be afforded to conserving and enhancing landscapes and scenic beauty.

Proposals for development within or affecting the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty(AONBs), New Forest National Park (NFNP) or Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site(WHS) shall demonstrate that they have taken account of the objectives, policies and actions set out in the relevant Management Plans for these areas


279

6.130 Heritage assets include:

Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Scheduled Ancient Monuments Registered Parks and Gardens Registered battlefields World Heritage Sites* Non-designated heritage assets such as buildings and

archaeological sites of regional and local interest.

*The policy recognises that the setting of the Bath World Heritage site may include elements within Wiltshire. Wiltshire Council will continue to work with Bath and North East Somerset Council to develop guidance on how the outstanding universal value of this world heritage site should be sustained.

Within the context of the specific characteristics of Wiltshire, development will be required to be sensitive to all heritage assets including:

the individual and distinctive character and appearance of Wiltshire’s historic market towns and villages

archaeological monuments and landscapes the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

Core Policy 58: Ensuring the conservation of the historic environment

Development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment.

Designated heritage assets and their settings will be conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner appropriate to their significance including:

i. nationally significant archaeological remains

ii. World Heritage Sites within and adjacent to Wiltshire

iii. buildings and structures of special architectural or historic interest

iv. the special character or appearance of conservation areas v. historic parks and gardens

vi. important landscapes, including registered battlefields and townscapes.

4.0 Other Statutory and Management Plans

related to the WHS

These plans include:

Wiltshire Community Strategy 2011–2026;

Wiltshire Joint Strategic Assessment;

the Amesbury Community Plan and evolving Neighbourhood Plans at both Amesbury and Shrewton;

Joint Strategic Assessment;

Green Infrastructure Strategy (Wiltshire Council),

North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan (2014);

the Integrated Land Management Plan for the Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain (MOD/DE);

Natural England Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve Management Plan;

the National Trust’s Land Use Plan (National Trust 2001);

the National Trust’s Property Management Plan;

the RSPB Normanton Down Management Plan (RSPB, 2009);

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Strategy for Stone-curlew (RSPB 2008); Countryside Access Improvement Plan (Wiltshire Council 2014);

Wiltshire Council Cycling Strategy 2011–2026;

Marlborough Down Nature Improvement Area Plan, as well as various private farm management plans and others.


Article 4 Direction in relation to land around Stonehenge

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Town and Country

Planning Acts, 1947-59

Town and Country Planning General Development

Order, 1950

Direction as to land around Stonehenge

Notice is hereby given that the Wiltshire County Council have directed in respect of approximately 7½ square miles of land around Stonehenge near Amesbury in the County of Wilts as defined on plans deposited for public inspection at the Area Planning Office, 50, Bedwyn Street, Salisbury and at the offices of the Amesbury Rural District Council, Redworth House, Amesbury, that the permission granted by Article 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Development Order, 1950, as amended shall not apply to the carrying out of any development on the said land consisting of the erection or placing of structures of a height exceeding six feet described in Classes VI(1) and VII referred to in the First Schedule to the said Order and not being development comprised within any other Class.

The effect of this direction, which has been approved by the Minister of Housing & Local Government, will be that from the date of first publication of this notice any persons wishing to carry out any building or engineering operations requisite for the use of the said land for the purposes of agriculture or for forestry consisting of the erection or placing of structures of a height exceeding six feet on any part of the land described in the direction will be obliged to apply for planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Dated this 8th day of May, 1962.

R.P. HARRIES Clerk of the County Council.

County Hall, Trowbridge, Wilts.

__________________________________________________

Appendix I

Article 4 Directions in relation to land around Stonehenge and Avebury

Article 4 Direction in relation to land around Avebury Manor, Avebury

Kennet District Council Town and Country Planning

Act 1971

Town and Country Planning General Development

Order, 1977

Direction under Article 4

WHEREAS Kennet District Council (hereinafter called “The Council”) being the appropriate Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development of the description set out in the Scheduled hereto should not be carried out on the land at Avebury Manor, Avebury, in the County of Wiltshire shown edged red on the plan annexed hereto (hereinafter called “The Land”) being land within a Conservation Area and an Area of Outstanding natural Beauty unless permission is granted on an application in that behalf,

NOW THEREFORE The Council is pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 as amended and as modified by the Town and Country Planning (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area, etc.) Special Development Order 1985 as amended (hereinafter called “The Order”) hereby direct that the permission granted by Article 3 of the Order shall not apply to development on the land of the description set out in the Schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

Development comprised within the following classes of the Order:

CLASS I

Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouseThe enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse (other than by the carrying out of operations within paragraph 2A of this Class) so long as: the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse (as

ascertained by external measurement) is not exceeded by more than 50 cubic metres or ten per cent, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum of 115 cubic metres;


281

the height of the building as so enlarged, improved or altered does not exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwellinghouse;

no part of the building as so enlarged, improved or altered projects beyond the forwardmost part of any wall of the original dewellinghouse which fronts on a highway;

no part of the building (as so enlarged, improved or altered) which lies within a distance of 2 metres from any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse has, as a result of the development, a height exceeding 4 metres;

the area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse (other than the dwellinghouse) does not thereby exceed fifty per cent of the total area of the curtilage excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse;

Provided that:- the erection of a garage, stable, loose box or coach house

within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse shall be treated as the enlargement of the dwellinghouse for all purposes of this permission (including calculation of cubic content);

for the purposes of this permission the extent to which the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse is exceeded shall be ascertained by deducting the amount of the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse from the amount of the cubic content of the dwelling house as enlarged, improved or altered (whether such enlargement, improvement or alteration was carried out in pursuance of this permission or otherwise); and

the limitation contained in sub-paragraph (d) above shall not apply to development consisting of:-

the insertion of a window (including a dormer window) into a wall or the roof of the original dwellinghouse or the alteration or enlargement of an existing window;

or any other alterations to any part of the roof of the

original dwellinghouse.

The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse so long as: the floor area does not exceed 2 square metres; no part of the structure is more than 3 metres above the

level of the ground; no part of the structure is less than 2 metres from any

boundary of the curtilage which fronts on a highway.

2A. The installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite

antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse but not including the installation of a satellite antenna in such a position that any that any part of it, when installed, will be beyond the forwardmost part of any wall of the original dwellinghouse which fronts on a highway; so long as:

the size of the antenna (excluding any projecting feed element) does not, when measured in any dimension, exceed 90 centimetres;

there is no other satellite antenna installed on the dwellinghouse or anywhere else within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse;

in the case of any antenna installed on the dwellinghouse the highest part of the antenna is not higher than the highest part of the roof of the building on which it is installed.

The erection, construction or placing, and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration, within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, of any building or enclosure (other than a dwelling, stable, satellite antenna, loose box, garage or coach house) required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such including the keeping of poultry, bees, pet animals, birds or other livestock for the domestic needs or personal enjoyment of the occupants of the dwellinghouse, so long as:-

no part of such building or enclosure projects beyond the forwardmost part of any wall of the original dwellinghouse which fronts on a highway;

in the case of a garage or coach house, no part of the building is within a distance of 5 metres from any part of the dwellinghouse;

the height does not exceed, in the case of a building

with a ridged roof, 4 metres, or in any other case, 3 metres;

the area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) does not thereby exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse.

The construction within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hardstanding for vehicles for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such.


The erection or placing within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a tank for the storage of oil for domestic heating, so long as:-

the capacity of the tank does not exceed 3500 litres;

no part of the tank is more than 3 metres above the level of the ground;

no part of the tank projects beyond the forwardmost part of any wall of the original dwellinghouse which fronts on a highway.

CLASS II

Sundry Minor Operations

The erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure not exceeding 1 metre in height where abutting on a highway used by vehicular traffic or 2 metres in height in any other case, and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure: so long as such improvement or alteration does not increase the height above the height appropriate for a new means of enclosure. The formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway not being a trunk or classified road, where required in connection with development permitted by article 3 of and Schedule 1 to this order (other than under this Class). The painting of the exterior of any building or work otherwise than for the purpose of advertisement, announcement, or direction.

CLASS IV

Temporary Buildings and Uses

The erection or construction on land in, on, over or under which operations other than mining operations are being or are about to be carried out (being operations for which planning permission has been granted or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Act, or for which planning permission is not required), or on land adjoining such land, of buildings, works, plant or machinery needed temporarily in connection with the said operations, for the period of such operations.The use of land (other than a building or the curtilage of a building) for any purpose or purposes except as a caravan site on not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year (of which not more than 14 days in total may be devoted to use for the purpose of motor car of motor-cycle racing or for the purpose of the holding of markets), and the erection or placing of moveable structures on the land for the purposes of that use:Provided that for the purpose of the limitation imposed on the number of days on which land may be used for motor car or

motor-cycle racing, account shall be taken only of those days on which races are held or practising takes place.

CLASS XXII

Use as a Caravan Site

The use of land, other than a building, as a caravan site in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs 2 to 9 (inclusive) of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 or in the circumstances (other than those relating to winter quarters) specified in paragraph 10 of the said Schedule.

Given under the common seal of the Kennet District council of Browfort, Bath Road, Devizes in the County of Wiltshire this fourth day of November One thousand nine hundred and eighty eight.

Article 4 Direction in relation to land at former telephone repeater station, Overton Hill, West Overton

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Town and Country

Planning Act 1990

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order, 1995

Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country

Planning (General Permitted Development) Order

1995 Restricting Permitted Development

WHEREASWiltshire Council (“the Authority’’) is the local planning authority within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (‘the Order’), in respect of the area of land specified in this Direction.

2. The Authority is satisfied that it is expedient that the development specified at the First Schedule in this Direction should not be carried out at the land specified in the Second Schedule (“the Land”) unless permission is granted for it on an application made under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

AND WHEREASthe Authority consider that the development of the description detailed in the First Schedule would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area and would constitute a threat to the amenities of their area and that the provisions of paragraph (4) of Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 apply:


283

NOW THEREFORE the Authority in pursuance of Article 4(1) of the Order and all other powers thereby enabling

DIRECTS THATThe permission granted by Article 3 of the Order shall not apply to development specified in the First Schedule to this Direction on the Land specified in the Second Schedule to this Direction.

This Direction is made under Article 4(1) of the Order and in accordance with Article 5(4) shall remain in force until the 16th day of December 2009 (being six months from the date of this Direction) and shall then expire unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

FIRST SCHEDULE

The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure (being development comprised within Class A, Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the said Order, and not being development comprised within any other Class).

The painting of the exterior of any building or work (being development comprised within Class C, Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the said Order, and not being development comprised within any other Class).

SECOND SCHEDULE

The Land shall comprise all that land shown edged red on the attached plan and comprising the Former Telephone Repeater Station, Overton Hill, and West Overton.

GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL of Wiltshire Council of Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN this 18th day of June 2009


Appendix J

Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Public Buildings and Works Concordat on future building work at Larkhill and Concordat Map

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Leatherhead Road,

Chessington, Surrey

17th February 1970

A/119/Wilts/600/Q2g(A) GCC in C Southern Command

SirSTONEHENGE – LARKHILL

1. I am directed to inform you that agreement has now been reached between the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Defence (Army) on the control to be exercised over the development of the area North of STONEHENGE.

2. The principles to be observed governing the erection of any future buildings at LARKHILL are embodied in a Concordat. A copy of the Concordat is attached for your information.

3. In order that there should be no breach of the under taking given to the MPBW it is essential that the terms of the Concordat should be made known to all authorities exercising responsibilities connected with Works Services or with building development on-land owned by the Army at LARKHILL.

4. If there is any doubt whether any Works or Lands proposal is in conflict with the terms of the Concordat it must be referred back to the appropriate Headquarters for clearance. In particular:

a. Proposals for alienation of Army land, or for building development on Army land leased to tenants, must be referred to the MOD (A) DCDL.

b. Proposals for Part II or Part III Works Services which might conflict with the terms of the Concordat or in respect of which agreement between the MOD (A) and the MPBW is required by the terms of the Concordat (e.g. buildings to a height in excess of 9 metres North of the building line described at Annexure A to the Concordat) must be referred to the MOD (A) DC.

c. Any Works or Lands proposals for Part I Works Services, when they are referred to the next Headquarters or to the MOD (A) must bear a reference to the Concordat so that its application is not overlooked.

5. Finally I am directed to request that arrangements should be made for the terms of the Concordat to be brought to the attention of all concerned by the reminder procedures available to Command, District and Garrison Headquarters.

I am, SirYour obedient servant(sgd)Director of Quartering (Army)


285

Concordat governing the location and construction of building for Ministry of Defence at Larkhill

(As agreed with MPBW, Ancient Monuments Division)

The Ministry of Defence have a requirement for a School of Artillery at Larkhill for as long as can be foreseen. In addition to the buildings now being erected, this Army Establishment may require further buildings or structures. However, it is the long term objective of the Ministry of Public Building and Works that no buildings or large tree plantings should be visible from Stonehenge. In furtherance of this objective, and to permit any necessary further development of the Army Establishment to be planned without further consultation on this aspect. It is agreed:

a. On the Ministry of Defence owned land south of the line described in Annex A (but excluding Durrington Downs Farm where, however, MPBW shall be consulted about the siting and character of any replacements or additions), no new buildings or structures shall be erected except additions to existing buildings; these additions not to exceed 50 sq metres in area and 5 metres in height above ground level. All new building work shall be screened by trees if visible from Stonehenge.

b. Any proposal for a building of more than 9 metres above ground level to be erected North of the line

as described and which would not be completely hidden from Stonehenge by ground contours shall be the subject of specific agreement between the Departments.

c. The Ministry of Defence will take no action which would increase the obtrusion of existing buildings and structures on the landscape as seen from Stonehenge.

d. The Ministry of Defence will take account when considering requirements for new building in the Larkhill area, the effect which such development might have in prolonging the life of existing buildings which are visible from Stonehenge.

Annexure ‘A’ to Concordat

Building line following completion of building for the move of Manorbier

From the limit of MOD property in the WEST the building line follows the Packway to the junction with the pathway to the cricket pavilion (at the Eastern end of the Shopping Centre). Thence, NORTH along this pathway past the Cricket pavilion to the junction with the School of Artillery Officers’ Mess approach which it follows NORTH (to the West of the Officers’ Mess) to the junction with GLOVER Road. Thence, EAST along GLOVE Road to the junction with the PACKWAY. Thence EAST along the PACKWAY to the junction with WOOD Road. Thence SOUTH along WOOD Road to the junction with POWNALL Road to the MOD Boundary.


Appendix K

Detailed archaeological description of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Evidence of Palaeolithic activity in the Avebury area is sparse, much of it on the clay with flints but with a presence now apparent around the headwaters of the River Kennet. Evidence at Cherhill, in Butler’s Field and in the area later occupied by Falkner’s Circle suggests a transient presence during the Later Mesolithic in the Avebury area with more sustained activity further down the Kennet valley around Newbury and Thatcham.

The sockets for four very large Early Mesolithic posts (c 8,000 BC) were found on the site of the previous Stonehenge car park. Such monumental activity is exceptionally rare in Britain during the Mesolithic. On the spring line overlooked by what later became Vespasian’s Camp at Blick Mead, lithic and faunal evidence suggests a sustained or repeated large-scale presence throughout much of the Mesolithic.

Earlier Neolithic (c 4000–3000 BC)

The earliest ceremonial and funerary monuments in and around the Stonehenge portion of the WHS date from the Earlier Neolithic and include about a dozen long barrows (some of which were burial mounds) and Robin Hood’s Ball, a causewayed enclosure just outside the WHS. These monuments were built in within what was already by then a largely open, grassland environment. The Cursus (a long thin earthwork enclosure bounded by a ditch and bank) was constructed around 3,630–3,370 BC, and the Lesser Cursus (a smaller rectangular enclosure) was also built towards the end of this period.

The years between about 3,700 and 3,300 BC saw the construction of a number of earthen long barrows and chambered tombs in the Avebury part of the WHS. Among the earliest are the chambered examples at West Kennet and Millbarrow. Unlike the earthen long barrows such as South Street and Horslip, that were built slightly later, both West Kennet and Millbarrow had a mortuary aspect to their use.

A recent radiocarbon dating programme suggests that the causewayed enclosure at Windmill Hill was built within a few years of West Kennet Long Barrow, though the enclosure itself was preceded by earlier activity and it remained a focal point for deposition into the Early Bronze Age.

Later Neolithic (3000–2200 BC)

Stonehenge itself and Avebury Henge and Stone Circles are both the products of a long sequence of construction and modification. The construction of the small circular enclosure at Stonehenge was begun around 3,000 BC and a similar early phase of construction evident beneath the final henge bank at Avebury may date from around the same time. To the west of the Henge the Longstones enclosure was also constructed during this period, though its form echoes that of the much earlier enclosure on Windmill Hill. At Stonehenge the principal entrance was on the north-east side and a secondary one to the south. Around this time fifty-six circular pits, known as the ‘Aubrey Holes’ after their original discoverer John Aubrey (1626–1697), were dug inside the bank at Stonehenge. These once held either stout timber posts or stones, but when these rotted or were removed cremations were placed within them.

The Avebury Henge ditch and bank seem to have been built c 2600 BC. The sequence of stone settings here is not firmly established but may have begun with the Cove and inner settings and been followed by the Outer Circle. Likewise the date of Falkner’s Circle is uncertain. The Sanctuary on Overton Hill and linked to Avebury by the West Kennet Avenue, represents another circular ceremonial monument, in this case built initially of timber posts which were subsequently replaced by sarsen stones. Neither the West Kennet nor the Beckhampton Avenues are well dated but appear to have been built after the Henge and Stone Circles towards the end of the Later Neolithic; while Silbury Hill was constructed between c 2400 BC and 2300 BC. The West Kennet Palisade Enclosures, which today survive only below ground, are also of Later Neolithic date.

At Stonehenge the sequence of the erection, dismantling and re-erection of the stone settings (comprised of bluestones from the Preseli Hills in West Wales, sarsens and, in one case, old red sandstone) is complex and still the subject of some debate but recent parchmark evidence suggests that contra to previous suggestions the outer sarsen circle was once complete. Very few other megalithic stone structures exist which have the architectural and technical sophistication of Stonehenge. It was uniquely built using woodworking techniques which may have been used in timber structures of the period such as those at Durrington Walls and Woodhenge.

To the east of Stonehenge, on Coneybury Hill, stood the smaller monument known as Coneybury Henge, while to the north-east stood the massive henge enclosure of Durrington


287

Walls with the smaller Woodhenge situated close by to the south. The timber structures at Durrington Walls were constructed perhaps a generation earlier than the encircling bank and ditch which formed the henge enclosure. There original use appears to be associated with the remains of at least ten late Neolithic houses situated inside and just outside the area later encircled by Durrington Walls henge excavated as part of the Stonehenge Riverside Project. The excavators have suggested that they may be the surviving elements of a much larger village of many hundreds of houses in use at the time of the construction of the main sarsen phase of Stonehenge. This would make it the largest village in north-west Europe at that time.

Stonehenge and Avebury would both have served as major ceremonial centres drawing large populations to the area both during their construction and subsequently. Recent evidence from stable isotope analysis suggests that some of the people visiting the site may have travelled considerable distances coming from well outside of the region.

A deep shaft known as the Wilsford Shaft was excavated at this time, and continued in use until the Roman period. The open nature of the countryside was maintained by grazing animals.

Early Bronze Age (c 2200–1600 BC)

Hundreds of round barrows of various forms were raised during the Early Bronze Age at both Avebury and Stonehenge. The discovery of Beaker graves unmarked by any mounds next to naturally occurring sarsens to the north of the Avebury part of the WHS and at the foot of stones in the West Kennet Avenue show that barrows were not the only places of burial in the landscape at this time. At West Kennet there is clear evidence that the Earlier Neolithic tomb was deliberately blocked during the Later Neolithic and there is also evidence of Beaker period activity within the tomb. And the Stone settings within the Henge at Avebury were still being maintained and used.

From their earliest construction Stonehenge and Avebury were individual components within landscapes in which the visual relationships between monuments and the contingent histories of particular places were important. There was a strong visual relationship between the round barrow cemeteries surrounding Stonehenge and Avebury and the pre-existing Later Neolithic monuments. This is perhaps more readily apparent today at Stonehenge with among others the King Barrow Ridge Barrows, the Cursus Barrows, the Normanton Down Barrows and the Winterbourne Stoke Barrows all built on prominent ridges within the landscape and situated in direct relationship to earlier monuments.In the Early Bronze Age Stonehenge was linked physically with the River Avon by the construction of an Avenue consisting of

a pair of parallel banks and ditches. At the Avenue’s junction with the Avon at West Amesbury stood a small henge which appears to have contained a stone circle (both of which are of uncertain date), and from which the stones were subsequently removed. The construction of the portion of the Avenue stretching from Stonehenge Bottom to the north-eastern entrance to Stonehenge coincides with the path of what appear to be a series of parallel peri-glacial stripes. It has been suggested that the pre-existence of this natural feature, oriented as it is on the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset may be the reason for the construction of not only the later Avenue but of Stonehenge itself.

At some point in the Earlier Bronze Age or possibly earlier a large wooden palisade situated running to the west and north of Stonehenge would have had a transformative effect on the landscape dividing it up in an entirely new way, disrupting visual relationships between monuments and possibly restricting access to some areas and monuments for certain groups.

Later Bronze Age (1600–1000 BC)

Some of the round barrows in both landscapes have Middle Bronze Age cremations but no major new monuments were built at this time. Over much of the Marlborough Downs there are Bronze Age field systems which post date Beaker period deposits and on Overton Down pre date a number of Late Bronze Age settlements which then adapted and modified the existing field systems.

There is evidence for a diverse range of activities in the area around Stonehenge during the Later Bronze Age including formalised settlements and field systems in some areas of the Stonehenge landscape. Linear banks and ditches, such as those across Wilsford Down and Lake Down, formally divided up the landscape. Although they encroached as far as the Cursus field systems are absent from the immediate area surrounding Stonehenge itself.

Iron Age (c 800 BC– AD 43)

At Avebury the principal evidence for late Iron Age occupation comes from the hillforts beyond the WHS, such as Oldbury and the more distant Barbury. On the Marlborough Downs the pattern of Late Bronze Age fields and settlements continued into the Early Iron Age and the settlements continued in use among the fields on the higher downland. But while major enclosures such as these indicate a significant Iron Age presence in the region, little evidence of Iron Age settlement or agriculture is apparent in the Avebury area.

Likewise there is little evidence for the continued ceremonial status of Stonehenge itself in later prehistory. The farming activities which were practised within the WHS in the Iron


Age have left little evidence, though an impressive hill fort was constructed near Amesbury, now known as Vespasian’s Camp.

Roman (c 43–410 AD)

The occurrence of Romano-British artefacts at Stonehenge itself shows that the monument was visited and used at that time; recent excavations have shown that a ‘shaft’ was dug into the monument during this period. However the pattern of these artefacts suggests that Stonehenge was already partly ruinous. Farmsteads and small un-enclosed towns of the Roman period are known across Salisbury Plain. Within the WHS itself, a small Roman building interpreted as a rural shrine has been excavated near to the Cuckoo Stone and a short distance to the south a Bronze Age barrow became a focal point for Roman burials.

At Avebury a Roman ladder settlement of 2nd to 3rd century date lay immediately south of Silbury Hill close to Swallowhead springs and the Winterbourne and beside the Roman road running west from Cunetio to Bath. The settlement’s size and location, together with the presence of a series of shafts containing what may be votive deposits, suggest something more than a mere farming settlement. Geophysical survey has revealed what may be either a mausoleum or a shrine of the period. Evidence also exists of substantial buildings and at least one burial on the western slopes of Waden Hill beside the Winterbourne. To the east on Overton Hill rare Roman barrows were built beside the road of the same period.

Saxon (c AD 410–1066)

There is evidence of an early Saxon settlement at Avebury itself, on the site of the current visitor car park, together with pagan Saxon barrows and other burials reusing the Bronze Age cemetery on Overton Hill. From the late Saxon period onwards there is documentary as well as archaeological evidence of the development of the landscape. Saxon charters provide evidence of the estates which came to form the medieval parishes and identify various features which the boundaries followed or crossed, including the Ridgeway which cuts across the prehistoric and Roman field systems on Overton Down. Green Street leading out of Avebury to the east was probably part of an important east-west route at this period if not before. Evidence for the Saxon origins of Avebury church is still apparent in its fabric. In the late Saxon period the summit of Silbury Hill was remodelled and a wooden fortification constructed, possibly to serve as a look-out post.

Amesbury was the centre for a widespread royal estate during the Saxon period, and the abbey was founded in AD 979. It is probable that the town itself grew up around these establishments but little is known of the way in which the surrounding landscape was utilised. However, the remains

of several Saxon sunken-featured buildings were revealed at the Countess East site which may have been an early Saxon settlement which later shifted to the town of Amesbury. Stonehenge itself may have become an execution site during this period; a decapitated Saxon man was buried around AD 645 at the monument. It is even possible that the name, Stonehenge from the Saxon stone and heng may refer to this function, or may mean that, to Saxon eyes, the great stone trilithons resembled a gallows. Alternatively it may simply refer to the extraordinary hanging lintels of the Stone Circle.

Medieval to Modern (AD 1066 onwards)

In the 12th century the alien cell of a Benedictine priory was established at Avebury, probably on, or close to the site of the present Avebury Manor.

A documented run of bad harvests in the early 14th century, which resulted in the desertion of the downland farmstead on Fyfield Down, followed by the Black Death later marked the end of early medieval expansion. Marginal arable reverted to pasture and there is evidence of settlement contraction or shift in most of the settlements along the Kennet, including Avebury itself and Avebury Trusloe.

From the 14th century onwards the practice of stone burial reduced many of the Avebury megalithic settings significantly. This process accelerated during the post-medieval period with Stukeley recording a period of particularly rampant stone destruction in the 1720s; though archaeological evidence suggests that the destruction may have started as early as the late 15th century.

The earliest surviving parts of Avebury Manor date to the mid-16th century. It is at about this time and during the 17th century that parts of the common downland pasture on West Hill, Windmill Hill and Knoll Down were enclosed. Most of the open fields were not enclosed until the 18th century, but a notable exception, still extant, was the enclosure of an area just east of the West Kennet Avenue. Parts of the meadowland along the valley floor at Avebury were enclosed in the 17th century, and at various points along the floor of the valley, at Avebury and around the foot of Silbury Hill. At West Overton and Avebury there are the earthworks of managed water meadow systems some probably originating in the 17th century and surviving in use until the 19th or early 20th century.

Parliamentary enclosure occurred in 1795 at Avebury and in 1813 to 1814 at Winterbourne Monkton and the Overton group of parishes, resulting in the creation of large rectangular fields, many bounded by quickset hedges, alongside the more limited areas of old enclosure. The Napoleonic Wars saw a re-expansion of arable, and this became even more marked


289

around the time of the First World War and then again after the Second World War when much remaining downland was ploughed up.

In the post-medieval and modern era there have been elements of conscious design in the development of the landscape in and around Avebury, reflecting different attitudes to the concept of landscape. This includes the 17th century designed parkland belonging to Avebury Manor and the tree clumps, known locally as ‘hedgehogs’, on the barrows along the skyline of the Ridgeway scarp east of Avebury. In the 1920s and 1930s Alexander Keiller embarked on his remarkable campaign of ‘megalithic landscape gardening’. This not only opened up the interior of the Henge, removing a number of buildings, but also involved restoration and reconstruction of substantial parts of Avebury Stone Circles and the West Kennet Avenue - making them far more visible features in the landscape than they had been for hundreds of years.

During the medieval period most of the Stonehenge part of the WHS reverted to downland used for the grazing of large flocks of sheep. In the 18th century Stukeley recorded much of the landscape at the point when arable agriculture was progressively expanding. However, it was the vast expanses of open grassland and the low land values which made the Plain suitable for acquisition for military training from 1897 onwards. Since then, the expansion and reconfiguration of military installations has been the most conspicuous use of the southern fringe of Salisbury Plain Training Area, including the northern part of the WHS. However, the acquisition of the Plain by the military has ensured the survival of huge numbers of archaeological sites and large areas of chalk grassland, as it was not subjected to intensive agricultural techniques.

Until the 18th century the extent of woodland around Stonehenge seems to have been minimal. The clumps of trees on ridgelines which we now associate with this landscape were a product of planting in the 18th and 19th centuries. There are a number of listed buildings within the WHS and also the remains of an important park and garden at Amesbury Abbey, which once stretched as far as King Barrow Ridge. It incorporated the planting on Vespasian’s Camp and the ‘Nile Clumps’ which date to this period.

Provided by Dr Nick Snashall, Archaeologist (Stonehenge and Avebury WHS), National Trust


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Stonehenge and Avebury were inscribed as a World Heritage Site by the World Heritage Committee because the Site:

i. Represents a masterpiece of human creative genius ii. Exhibits an important interchange of human values

over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town planning or landscape design

iii. Bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation which is living or has disappeared.

1.2 A vision for the Stonehenge World Heritage Site is set out within the Stonehenge World Heritage Management Plan (June 2000). Its implementation is being overseen by an Implementation Group of the key stakeholders within the World Heritage Site. The Management Plan has been adopted by Salisbury District Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance. It has been lodged with UNESCO.

1.3 The World Heritage Site Management Plan seeks to balance the primary aim of protecting and enhancing the Site’s outstanding universal significance with other legitimate needs especially those of the local community within an overall framework of sustainability. The Management Plan has a number of Objectives and an Implementation Co-ordinator has been appointed (July 2001).

1.4 This statement sets out principles which the Implementation Group considers should be applied to all archaeological work carried out within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. All those commissioning or carrying out archaeological work or advising or approving proposals for such work are urged to follow these principles.

1.5 These principles should apply to all archaeological work carried out within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and take account of its outstanding universal significance. Although the principles specifically address archaeology, it is acknowledged that the approach must integrate with

other values and objectives for the overall management of the World Heritage Site. Where appropriate the principles reflect the approaches developed for the Avebury World Heritage Site.

2.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2.1 Any consideration of the cultural heritage of the World Heritage Site should be inclusive and include archaeology from the Palaeo-environmental up to and including remains of the last century. Listed Buildings and Parks and Gardens and other cultural heritage remains should be given equal weight.

2.2 These principles seek to guide actions to ensure the conservation of cultural heritage assets contributing to the outstanding universal significance of the World Heritage Site.

2.3 All works should be done to an appropriately high standard that adequately reflects the importance of the World Heritage Site, taking on board guidance and standards set out by ICOMOS, UNESCO at the international level, the Institute of Field Archaeologists, National Trust, English Heritage at the national level, and Wiltshire County Council Archaeology Service at the regional level. (See 4.0)

2.4 Organisations and individuals undertaking archaeological work within the World Heritage Site should do so within the ethical and professional standards on archaeology as set out in the IfA Code of Conduct, Bylaws, Standards and Policy Statements. (See 4.0)

2.5 Applicable Government guidelines on planning and archaeology include PPG15 which makes specific reference to World Heritage Sites, PPG 16, GDO and the Highways Agency DMRB volume 10 and 11. (See 4.0)

3.0 DETAILED PRINCIPLES

All those undertaking archaeological work in the World Heritage Site must:

3.1 Observe appropriate professional codes, guidance and standards. (See 4.0)

3.2 Utilise the considerable information already available from prior investigations where appropriate and relevant before commissioning any new works. Only undertake further surveys when the evidence from previous surveys has been reviewed and found to be in need of augmentation. Archaeometry investigations and field walking of appropriate areas should be undertaken where possible before intrusive investigations and excavations.

Appendix L

Statement of principles governing archaeological work in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS

Endorsed by the Stonehenge World Heritage Site

Management Plan Implementation Group, January

2002


291

3.3 Ensure that the visual character of the setting of the World Heritage Site as a whole, and of its component parts, is not significantly eroded but is enhanced where possible.

3.4 Ensure that all results are disseminated in an appropriate format for assimilation into the SMR and Stonehenge World Heritage Site GIS.

3.5 Consider archaeological and cultural heritage evidence from all periods and its contribution to the understanding of the Historic Landscape.

3.6 Adopt a phased approach for archaeological assessment and mitigation, successive phases being complementary in their method and the presentation of results so that the results are integrated. Duplication should be avoided.

3.7 Ensure that all results are disseminated in an appropriate format so as to develop the understanding by the archaeological profession and the public at large.

3.8 Only undertake the minimum necessary intrusive excavation where it is necessary to inform research questions, design process or to mitigate the unavoidable effects of construction or of temporary works.

3.9 Only undertake extensive intrusive works in areas where it is probable that there will be a direct impact through development, or where there is a need to consider management issues.

3.10 Only advocate the replacement or diminution of historical assets with a record where the need for this outweighs the need for their preservation in situ.

3.11 Utilise the contribution to archaeology from opportunities created by other works (for example, geotechnical surveys).

3.12 Ensure that sufficient information is gathered on the presence or absence of archaeological remains to ensure that informed decisions can be made about its management.

3.13 Observe a minimum standard of surveys across the entire World Heritage Site. The scope and intensity of surveys may increase in particular areas, as the need for further information becomes apparent. There should be no needless degradation of the archaeological resource through unwarranted and intrusive impacts on the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.

3.14 Ensure that the full range of archaeological techniques is considered and that on every occasion the most appropriate are selected.

3.15 All works whether temporary or permanent and their impacts on the outstanding universal significance of the World Heritage Site must be assessed and further investigated where necessary.

3.16 All works must take account of all statutory designations.

3.17 All works must only proceed following appropriate consultation with English Heritage, and Wiltshire County Council and other relevant consultees, including landowners.

4.0 GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS

a. Association of County Archaeological Officers, Model Briefs and Specifications for Archaeological Assessments and Field Evaluations, 1993

b. English Heritage, Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd ed, 1991

c. Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vols 10 and 11

d. Institute of Archaeologists, Codes of Conduct: Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual

arrangements in field archaeology

Regulations for the registration of archaeological organisations

Standards and guidance for archaeological desk based assessment, field evaluation, excavation, watching briefs, investigation and recording of standing buildings and structures, artefact and environmental study, collection, research and conservation.

e. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), International Charter for Archaeological Heritage Management

(Lausanne Charter)

f. UNESCO, Guidelines for the Management of World Cultural Heritage Sites, 1999

g. Wiltshire County Council, Standards for Archaeological Assessment and Field evaluation in Wiltshire 1995

Authors:

English Heritage, Highways Agency, National Trust, Wiltshire County Council


Appendix M

Stonehenge Regulations 1997

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 1997 NO. 2038

The Stonehenge Regulations 1997

© Crown Copyright 1997

Statutory Instruments printed from this website are printed under the superintendence and authority of the Controller of HMSO being the Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament.

The legislation contained on this web site is subject to Crown Copyright protection. It may be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users.It should be noted that the right to reproduce the text of Statutory Instruments does not extend to the Queen’s Printer imprints which should be removed from any copies of the Statutory Instrument which are issued or made available to the public. This includes reproduction of the Statutory Instrument on the Internet and on intranet sites. The Royal Arms may be reproduced only where they are an integral part of the original document.

The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument which is published by the Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament has been prepared to reflect the text as it was made. A print version is also available and is published by The Stationery Office Limited as the The Stonehenge Regulations 1997, ISBN 0 11 064841 2.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1997 No. 2038

ANCIENT MONUMENTS

The Stonehenge Regulations 1997

Made 18th August 1997

Coming into force 8th September 1997

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 19(3) and (4) of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act 1979[1] and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following regulations:

Citation, commencement and revocation

1. – (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Stonehenge Regulations 1997 and shall come into force on 8th September 1997.

(2) The Stonehenge Regulations 1983[2] are hereby revoked.

Interpretation

2. In these Regulations:

“the deposited plan” means the plan entitled “Plan referred to in the Stonehenge Regulations 1997”, signed by the Head of the Buildings, Monuments and Sites Division of the Department of National Heritage and deposited for inspection at the offices of the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

“English Heritage” means the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England;

“monument” means the ancient monument known as Stonehenge situated on Stonehenge Down near Amesbury in the county of Wiltshire and includes any part or parts of the monument;

“site of the monument” means the land shown on the deposited plan edged in black and hatched.


293

Acts prohibited

3. The following acts are prohibited:

(a) injuring, disfiguring, removing or otherwise interfering with in any manner the monument or any notice or any other property situated on the site of the monument;

(b) climbing on the monument;

(c) digging up, removing or otherwise interfering with any soil, grass or plants within the site of the monument;

(d) bringing onto, parking or leaving any vehicle on the site of the monument otherwise than in accordance with parking authorised by English Heritage;

(e) bringing any animal onto the site of the monument

without the prior consent of English Heritage or allowing any animal to remain after such consent has been withdrawn;

(f) lighting a fire or a firework on the site of the monument;

(g) throwing a stone or discharging a weapon or missile of any kind from, over or onto the site of the monument;

(h) without reasonable excuse entering or being upon any part of the site of the monument to which access is at any time restricted by barrier or prohibited by notice.

Acts prohibited unless done with written consent

4. The following acts are prohibited unless the prior consent in writing of English Heritage has been obtained:

(a) entering or being within the site of the monument at any time when it is not open to the public;

(b) entering the site of the monument otherwise than by the entrance authorised by English Heritage;

(c) organising or taking part in any assembly, display, performance, representation, review, theatrical event, festival, ceremony or ritual within the site of the monument;

(d) erecting a tent or any structure of any kind within the site of the monument;

(e) erecting or using within the site of the monument any apparatus for the transmission, reception, reproduction or amplification of sound, speech or images by electrical or other means unless the sound emitted is audible to the user only.

Acts done by or on behalf of English Heritage or the

Secretary of State

5. An officer, servant or agent of English Heritage or the Secretary of State, acting in the performance of his duties, shall not be in contravention of regulation 3 and shall be deemed to have the prior consent in writing of English Heritage to any of the acts specified in regulation 4.

Chris SmithSecretary of State for National Heritage

18th August 1997

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations regulate public access to the ancient monu-ment known as Stonehenge,

near Amesbury in the County of Wiltshire.

Notes:

[1] 1979 c.46.back [2] S.I. 1983/678.back

ISBN 0 11 064841 2


Facts and figuresGlossaryIndex

Sheep in the Avebury Henge © Steve Marshall

320 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and figures

ARCHAEOLOGYNeolithic and Bronze Age monuments

Stonehenge

Stonehenge (c 3,000–1,600 BC) First Stonehenge – circular bank and ditch (c 3,000 BC). The Stones arrive (c 2,500 BC) The bluestones rearranged (c 2,200 BC) The tallest sarsen stone is 7.3m high and weighs over 40 tonnes. It is one of the 5 sarsen trilithons. The sarsen circle was originally composed of 30 uprights (each weighing about 25 tonnes) capped by horizontal lintels (c 7 tonnes). The bluestones, weighing up to 4 tonnes each, came from the Preseli Hills in Wales, c 240km away

Other key monuments at Stonehenge include the Stonehenge Avenue (c 2,500–1,700 BC and 2.5km long), the Cursus (c 3,600–3,400 BC and 2.7km long), Woodhenge (c 2,300 BC), and Durrington Walls (c 2,500 BC).

Avebury

The Avebury Henge and Stone Circles (c 2,600–1,800 BC)The Henge consists of a huge bank and ditch c 1.3km in circumference. The Stone Circle is the largest in the world and this and the two smaller inner circles were made up of 180 local, unshaped sarsen stones

Silbury Hill (c 2,425–2,300 BC)Silbury Hill is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. It stands at c 39.5m tall and comprises around half a million tonnes of chalk

Other key monuments at Avebury include the West Kennet Long Barrow (c 3,650BC), Windmill Hill (c 3,650–3,350 BC) West Kennet Avenue (c 2,600–1,800 BC), the Sanctuary (2,500–2,000BC).

The WHS contains around 600 prehistoric burial mounds: c 350 at Stonehenge and c 250 at Avebury. These include 10 Neolithic long barrows at Stonehenge and 6 at Avebury including West Kennet and East Kennet Long Barrows, the rest are Bronze Age barrows. Key barrow cemeteries include Normanton Down, King Barrows, Cursus Barrows, Winterbourne Stoke, Wilsford and Lake Barrows at Stonehenge and Overton Hill, Avebury Down, Waden Hill, Fox Covert, Hemp Knoll and Beckhampton Penning at Avebury.

Altogether, the Stonehenge part of the WHS includes more than 700 known archaeological features (including find spots), of which 415 are protected by scheduling within 175 scheduled areas. At Avebury there are around 450 known archaeological

features (exclusive of find scatters). 200 of these are protected by scheduling within 74 scheduled areas.

SIZE AND OWNERSHIP OF THE WHS

The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS covers c 52 square kilometres (5,200ha – 12,849 acres). Both the Stonehenge and Avebury landscapes each cover c 26 square kilometres. Ownership and management of the WHS is shared between English Heritage, the National Trust, Historic England, the Ministry of Defence, Natural England, the RSPB, landowners, farmers and householders in Amesbury, Larkhill and the Woodford Valley, Avebury, Avebury Trusloe, Beckhampton, West Kennett, West Overton and Winterbourne Monkton.

There are 3 Guardianship Monuments at Stonehenge: Stonehenge, Woodhenge and parts of Durrington Walls which are owned by the state and managed by English Heritage.

At Avebury the only area in state ownership is the Sanctuary which is managed by the National Trust. At Avebury there are 6 properties in state guardianship: Avebury Henge and Stone Circles; Windmill Hill; West Kennet Long Barrow; Silbury Hill; the Sanctuary; West Kennet Avenue. Their management is undertaken by the National Trust as part of a Local Management Agreement (LMA) with English Heritage.

A large part of the landscape surrounding Stonehenge is owned by the National Trust (827ha, around 32% of the Stonehenge part of the WHS). The National Trust owns 647ha at Avebury, around 25% of the Avebury part of the WHS, which includes many of the major monuments such as the Henge and Windmill Hill.

GRASSLAND REVERSION

In the Stonehenge part of the WHS, there are 5 Higher Level Stewardship Agreements in 2015. Over 640ha of arable land (c 25% of its area) have been signed up for grassland reversion. 102ha of grassland are managed extensively to protect underlying archaeology and benefit the landscape and wildlife and 319ha are cultivated at reduced depth to protect archaeology. Around 40% of the Stonehenge part of the WHS is in environmental stewardship schemes helping to protect and/or enhance the setting of c 500 historic features.

In the Avebury part of the WHS there are 10 Higher Level Stewardship Agreements in 2015. There are over 101ha of reverted grassland. 482ha of grassland is managed

Facts and figures

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and figures

321

extensively to protect underlying archaeology and benefit the landscape and wildlife and 455ha are cultivated at reduced depth cultivation to protect archaeology. Around 40% of the Avebury part of the WHS is in environmental stewardship schemes helping to protect and/or enhance the setting of c 300 historic features.

Grassland reversion together with specific management options under environmental stewardship schemes as well as related capital items designed to protect and enhance the WHS represent a financial commitment from Defra of approximately £2 million over the lifetime of the agreements.

WHS VISITORS AND FACILITIES

Stonehenge

1,250,000 visitors to Stonehenge in 2013/14 (excluding the Solstice and including free education visits and stone circle access).

About 55% are from overseas, 30% are part of a group and 5% are education visitors. More than 70% of the education visitors are from overseas.

Summer Solstice: Approximately 36,000 people attended in June 2014.

Existing visitor facilities completed in December 2013. (Visitor Centre with an education room; permanent and temporary exhibition space; shop, café and car park)

Access inside the stone circle was stopped in 1978 because of vandalism and erosion due to increasing visitor numbers. Carefully managed stone circle access can be booked with English Heritage at certain times.

Avebury Around 300,000 visitors to Avebury in 2013/14 (open access nature of the site makes it difficult to accurately reflect numbers)

About 10% are from overseas, 22% are part of a group and 8% are education visitors.

Summer Solstice: c 2, 000 visitors in June 2014.

Visitor facilities include the Alexander Keiller Museum and Barn Gallery managed by the National Trust. There is also an education room, shop and café. The car park is owned and managed by the National Trust. There are 3 pubs that serve food within the WHS and 2 other shops in Avebury one of which is run by the community. Bed and breakfast accommodation is also available.

Access to the major monuments is largely open at Avebury except when areas are closed for conservation purposes or on private land without permissive access. There is no access to Silbury Hill for conservation and safety reasons.

Facts and figures compiled by the WHS Coordination Unit, February 2015

322 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Glossary

TERM OR PHRASE SOURCEDEFINITION

World Heritage Convention

World Heritage Site

Site

World Heritage Property

Outstanding Universal Value

Cultural Heritage

The 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the world Cultural and Natural Heritage provides for the identification, protection, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of Outstanding Universal Value.

World Heritage Sites are recognised as places of Outstanding Universal Value under the terms of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.

Where this is used with a capital letter, this term is used as a shorthand for ‘World Heritage Site’.

Alternative term for World Heritage Site.

Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.

To be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value, a property must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding

Article 1 – For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as ‘cultural heritage’:

Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of history, art or science;

Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of history, art or science;

Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.

World Heritage Convention, Article 4

UNESCO World Heritage website

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention para 49

Operational Guidelines para 78

World Heritage Convention Article 1

UNESCO website

Glossary

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Glossary

323


Authenticity

Integrity


Operational Guidelines para 79ff

Operational Guidelines para 87ff


The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity.

Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. Examining the conditions of integrity therefore requires assessing the extent to which the property:a) includes all elements necessary to express its

outstanding universal value;b) is of adequate size to ensure the complete

representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance;

c) suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.

Today, these Statements are adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for all new WHSs at the time of inscription.

The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value should include a summary of the Committee’s determination that the property has outstanding universal value, identifying the criteria under which the property was inscribed, including the assessments of the conditions of integrity or authenticity, and of the requirements for protection and management in force. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value shall be the basis for the future protection and management of the property.

A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value was prepared by the two local steering committees and approved by UNESCO in 2013.

This Statement of OUV included the Statement of Significance agreed in 2008.



Protection

Management System

Statement of Significance



Statement of Outstanding Universal ValueNomination dossier



Cf WHC 06 30 COM 11A.1

See Management Plan para 4.1.13

All properties inscribed on the World Heritage List must have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditional protection and management to ensure their safeguarding. This protection should include adequately delineated boundaries. Similarly States Parties should demonstrate adequate protection at the national, regional, municipal, and/or traditional level for the nominated property.

Legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the survival of the property and its protection against development and change that might negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value, or the integrity and/or authenticity of the property.

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites WHS as a whole is protected through the planning system. The complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments within the landscape without parallel are protected by designation as scheduled monuments.

Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the Outstanding Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.

The purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations.

Avebury has had an effective Management Plan since 1998.Stonehenge has had an effective Management Plan since 2000.

At the request of UNESCO, these were prepared for older Sites where there was no assessment of authenticity and integrity at the time of inscription, so that a full Statement of Outstanding Universal Value could not be prepared. The Statement of Significance should be considered a working tool for the management of the property.

A Statement of Significance for the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS, was agreed by UNESCO in 2008. It is derived from the nomination and evaluation documentation of 1985/6.

The Statement of Significance (2008) was subsumed into the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (2013).

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Glossary

325


Attribute/ Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value

Stonehenge, Avebury and the Associated Sites World Heritage Site

Operational Guide-lines para 100

WHC 08 COM 32 8B 93; this is the first part of the agreed Statement of Significance

Attributes are a direct tangible expression of the OUV of the property.

At Stonehenge and Avebury, all these attributes are ultimately derived from the 2008 Statement of Significance and the nomination and evaluation documentation of 1985/6. Taken together the attributes define the reasons for the OUV of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS.

The Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites World Heritage property is internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments.

It comprises two areas of chalkland in Southern Britain within which complexes of Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments and associated sites were built. Each area contains a focal stone circle and Henge and many other major monuments. At Stonehenge these include the Avenue, the Cursuses, Durrington Walls, Woodhenge, and the densest concentration of burial mounds in Britain. At Avebury, they include Windmill Hill, the West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Silbury Hill, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues, the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures, and important barrows.

The World Heritage property is of Outstanding Universal Value for the following qualities:

Stonehenge is one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design, the shaping of the stones, uniquely using both Wiltshire Sarsen sandstone and Pembroke Bluestone, and the precision with which it was built.

At Avebury, the massive Henge, containing the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world, and Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric mound in Europe, demonstrate the outstanding engineering skills which were used to create masterpieces of earthen and megalithic architecture.

There is an exceptional survival of prehistoric monuments and sites within the World Heritage site including settlements, burial grounds, and large constructions of earth and stone. Today, together with their settings, they form landscapes without parallel. These complexes would have been of major significance to those who created them, as is apparent by the huge investment of time and effort they represent. They provide an insight into the mortuary and ceremonial practices of the period, and are evidence of prehistoric technology, architecture, and astronomy. The careful siting of monuments in relation to the landscape helps us to further understand the Neolithic and Bronze Age.



Associated Sites

Remaining sites

Associated sites and monuments

Sites

Monuments

related sites

associated sites

other monuments and sites of the period

prehistoric monuments and sites within the WHS

Landscape without parallel

See previous entry for description of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site.

The phrase is set out in the 1985 nomination documentation. Such sites are un-named ‘Associated Sites’ as defined above.

This phrase is as set out in the 1985 nomination documentation and has the same definition as ‘Associated Sites’.

These phrases are as set out in the 1985 nomination documentation, and have the same definition as ‘Associated Sites’.

See Statement of Significance and Statement of OUV above.

The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value makes clear that there are two landscapes without parallel – one at Stonehenge and one at Avebury, both formed of complexes of monuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, together with their settings and associated sites.

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Index

327

Page numbers in bold refer to illustrations.

AA4 23, 27, 35, 104, 132, 161, 162

gateway signs 153, 153

impact 163, 163

impact mitigation 163–4, 237road safety 167, 168

A303 11, 11, 23, 29, 35, 37, 50, 104, 132, 173, 276

A344 junction 159congestion 75, 117–18dualling 161gateway signs 153, 153

impact 51, 82, 158, 158, 159–61, 167

impact mitigation 236management 156responsibility for 70road safety 168traffic volume 156, 158–9tunnel recommendation 160, 160,

161World Heritage Bureau reports 267,

268World Heritage Committee reports

269–70A303/A30/A358 corridor feasibility

study 160–1A344 23, 27, 35, 50, 239

closure 29, 50, 121, 147, 157, 157, 159, 236, 271–2

cycling route 133impact 124, 157reseeding 157

road safety 167, 168World Heritage Bureau reports 268World Heritage Committee reports

271–2A345 15, 23, 104, 158A360 16, 23, 158A361 23, 35, 153, 162A4361 49, 132, 161, 162

impact 163impact mitigation 163–4road safety 167speed limit 169

abbreviations 199–200Abury, a Temple of the British Druids

(Stukeley) 18, 19access 29, 45, 219, 221

Avebury 132, 311(map)

Avebury Management Plan, 2005 49

optimisation 193research findings 184–5restraints 132and road safety 168Stonehenge 132, 219, 300(map)

see also public accessAccess Statements 62Access to Nature Programme 147accommodation 131, 222, 275accountability UK Government 24Acronyms 199–200Action Plan 10

annual 197, 243‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ 31

Agricultural Holdings Act 70agricultural management 40agriculture 76, 77

actions 110, 111agri-environmental land management

schemes 29, 109–11, 214Avebury 76and conservation 88cultivation impacts 107–8, 108

damage 107development management 88, 88

grazing management 112impacts on archaeological features

108–9, 108, 109

key issues 107–11, 107, 108, 109, 110

landscape impacts.23-4 24

permanent pasture 108–9restrictions 108Stonehenge 76

agri-environmental land management schemes 29, 109–11, 214

aims 192–4aims, policies and actions 198–9

abbreviations 199–200Avebury only actions 211, 212, 218,

221, 224, 228, 230, 236–8, 239community engagement 231–4conservation 206–18endorsement 201–5interpretation 226–8, 234–5learning provision 229–31management and liaison 243–4monitoring 244research 240–3Stonehenge only actions 208, 210,

218, 224, 227, 230, 236, 239traffic management 235–9visitor management 219–26

aircraft 105

Alexander Keiller Museum 25, 38, 38, 43, 43, 74, 119, 125, 129, 130, 138, 141–2, 183, 186, 222, 228, 241, 260

alignments 33, 37, 103, 210Allen Environmental Archaeology 43,

54Amesbury 170, 288Amesbury 42 Long Barrow 52Amesbury Abbey 41Amesbury Abbey Park and Garden 37,

63, 63, 97, 114, 289Amesbury Archer grave 35Amesbury Area Strategy 276–7Amesbury History Centre 140, 155,

155, 223Amesbury Society 66Amesbury Town Council 66Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Areas Act 1979 28, 59, 62, 97, 99annual action plan 197annual report 190antiquarian studies 18–19, 34Arable Biodiversity Strategy 214Arable Reversion Opportunities

Mapping project 46–7, 52, 111, 214, 216

archaeological archives 74archaeological description of the WHS

284–7archaeological features, agricultural

practices impact 108–9, 108, 109

Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site 52

archaeological significance 25archaeological work, principles

governing 179, 290–1archives 38, 142, 183–4area strategies 274–5Areas of High Ecological Value (AHEV)

64Army Basing Review 88Article 4 Directions 61, 90, 204, 280–3,

302(map)

artistic influence 34, 37Arts Development Team, Wiltshire

Council 151Arts Framework 151, 232Association of Local Government

Archaeologists Organisation 186astronomy, links to 33, 37Aubrey, John 18–19, 27, 34, 38, 286authenticity 28, 35–7, 58Avebury and District Club House 106,

213

328 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Index

Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) 50, 66, 67, 67, 146, 179, 182–3, 183, 197, 242

membership 261procedures 261role 260terms of reference 260–1

Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group 32, 46, 48, 49–50, 67, 80, 145, 173, 177, 178, 180, 182

Avebury Archaeological Research Agenda 49–50

Avebury Conservation Area 97Avebury Guardians 136Avebury Learning Plan 145Avebury Local Plan 163Avebury Management Plan, 1998 12Avebury Management Plan, 2005 12, 13,

80, 81, 83, 93, 117, 121, 145, 165–6, 190

archaeological research 49–50evaluation 46–50monitoring indicators 49objectives 47–50parking management 49planning and policy framework 48public access 49sustainable tourism 49traffic management 48–9, 162

Avebury Manor 38, 41, 61, 63, 81, 114, 119, 125, 288, 289

Avebury Parish Council 67Avebury Parish Traffic Plan 162, 164Avebury Sacred Sites Forum (ASSF)

136Avebury Solstice Operational Planning

Group 136Avebury Tourist Information Centre 49Avebury WHS Transport Strategy 29, 133,

156Avebury Trusloe 75, 76, 288Avebury village 75–6, 75

Article 4 Direction Area 61geophysical survey 50land ownership 70

Avebury WHS, Henge and Stone Circles 10, 10, 18, 31, 33

access 45, 132, 311(map)

agriculture 76aims, policies and actions 211, 212,

218, 221, 224, 228, 230, 236–8, 239

alignments 33, 37

archaeological description 286–9archaeological importance 17Article 4 Directions 280–2artistic influence 34, 34, 37boundaries 16, 27boundary reassessment 35, 47, 91,

91–2, 92

branding 125car parking 124, 125, 135, 137, 170–

1, 171, 172, 224, 275, 311(map)

community engagement 147, 147–8, 148

conservation 100, 211, 212Conservation Area 313(map)

construction of Henge and Stone Circles 284

cultivation impacts 108dimensions 26economic benefit 129funding 69geophysical survey 54grassland reversion 78, 310(map)

habitat survey 316(map)

heritage designations 313(map)

impact of roads 157

influence of 18–19interpretation 44, 140, 140, 143,

228key landscape characteristics 22land ownership 312(map)

land use 309(map)

landscape 102landscape and nature conservation

designations 314(map)

landscape character classification 315(map)

landscape management 47–8, 47, 48

landscape types 21learning provision 143, 145, 145,

146, 230lidar survey 178, 184local community 75–6, 75

Local Management Agreements (LMA) 125

location 15, 15, 34, 296(map)

Medieval and post-medieval activity 289

middle Neolithic occupation site 54monitoring indicators 190Negotiating Avebury Project 54public transport 174–5, 239regional landscape context 20Research Agenda 67, 179, 180restoration 36, 105

road network 23, 161, 172, 236–8road safety 167, 168Scheduled Monuments 18screen planting 116, 218setting key actions 105signage 125solstice management 135-7speed limits 168spiritual resonance 44topography 22traffic volume 161–2vehicle damage 100–1, 173visitor damage 100–1, 126–7, 126

visitor data collection 127visitor facilities 124, 275visitor management 119, 122, 124–

5, 124, 221visitor numbers 10, 45, 125, 161visitor transport 174

visual sensitivity 317(map)

Wiltshire Core Strategy 273–4woodland 78World Heritage Bureau reports

267–9World Heritage Committee reports

267, 269–72World Heritage Site Traffic Strategy

29World Heritage Site (WHS) 10,

308(map)

Avebury WHS Boundary Review 47Avebury WHS Interpretation and

Learning Framework (AILF) 133, 140, 141, 145, 224, 226, 228, 230

Avebury WHS Management Plan Review 2012 263

Avebury WHS Officer 14, 67Avebury WHS Research Agenda 67, 179

Avebury WHS Residents’ Pack 49, 49, 147, 147–8, 148

Avebury WHS Steering Committee 13, 67

membership 256Avebury WHS Transport Strategy 2015

15, 135, 140, 162–4, 162, 163–4, 168, 169, 171, 176, 224, 236, 238

Avenue to Learning project 46, 145, 145, 185, 185, 231

Avon, River 15, 33, 40, 64, 111, 287Avon valley 22

BB3086 16B4003 23, 100, 104, 104, 105, 164,


329

165–7, 166, 172aims, policies and actions 211impact mitigation 237road safety 167

Badger Survey 96, 97, 206badgers 42, 96–7, 96

Badgers Act 1992 96barrows 16, 24

Bronze Age 33, 287Saxon 288setting 102see also individual monuments

Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) 95

Bath WHS Setting Study 95bats 42BBC 119Beaker People Project 54Beaker period activity 287Beckhampton Avenue 34, 47, 54Beckhampton Hill barrow cemetery 47Beckhampton Penning 16Beckhampton Plantation 23Beckhampton racing yard 76Between the Monuments Project 29,

36, 43, 50, 54, 54, 182

biodiversity 41, 113, 114, 215, 216Biodiversity 2020 113Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 111,

114, 216biodiversity values 39, 111Bird Survey 42, 114birds 42, 42, 111–12Birmingham, University of 43, 53Blick Mead 53, 148Blick Mead Project 52bluestone quarry 53–4Boscombe Bowmen graves 35Boscombe Down 23, 94boundaries 15–16, 27boundary review 35, 192, 205

Avebury 91–2buffer zones 93principles 92Stonehenge 92–3

Bournemouth, University of 43, 45branding strategy 153, 153, 220, 233British Museum 183Bronze Age 53, 287buffer zones 93, 94burial mounds 33burrowing animals 213Bush Barrow 54, 142

byways 172–3, 173, 208, 238

CCall-in Regulations 61Calne Area Strategy 277car parking 84, 132, 169

actions 172alternative provision, Stonehenge

170Avebury 124, 125, 134, 136 ,137,

170–1, 171, 224, 275, 311(map)

Avebury High Street 172capacity, Stonehenge 169–70fees 170impact mitigation 236off-site 176safety 167Stonehenge 134, 169–70, 172, 224,

236, 300(map)

unofficial 170, 171

Wiltshire Core Strategy 275Woodhenge 170

carrying capacity 122ceremonial monuments 32chalk grassland 112–13Chalk Grassland Strategy 104, 111,

113, 114, 214, 216chalkland 20–1, 104charitable events 134charitable organisations 187–8, 221Cherhill 23children 128Chris Blandford Associates 114Circular Walks 133Clatford Bottom 22climate change 84, 96, 113, 116–17,

117, 127Climate Change Risk Assessment 46, 116,

117, 117, 218Collections Development Policies 183Common Agricultural Policy 110, 110

communication strategy 149, 187newsletters 152Twitter account 152, 152–3website 152

Communities and Local Government Circular 02/2009 61

Community and Education Officer 144Community Area Boards 70, 86, 148–9community engagement 11, 193

actions 151aims, policies and actions 231–4Avebury 147, 147–8, 148

communication 149community events 149and the creative art sector 151

key issues 138, 148–56management and liaison 187Neighbourhood Development Plans

148oral history project 148research 185–6, 185

Silbury Hill 149

Stonehenge 147, 149, 151volunteering 150, 150

community events 149, 231Community Infrastructure Levy 86, 189community research 186Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 58Condition Survey 5 46, 47, 49, 68, 96,

97, 98–9, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 109, 126, 172–3, 206, 207, 209

Coneybury Henge 40, 286Connecting Wiltshire travel planner

175, 176, 238conservation 13

and agriculture 88aims, policies and actions 206–18annual review 209Avebury 211, 212birds 111–12chalk grassland 112–13conservation statements 99definition 62English Heritage responsibilities 71environmental 97funding 215historic environment 278key issues 95–101landscape 22Listed Buildings 97managing change 12and metal detecting 99monitoring 101, 209monument management 98–101, 98

nature 111–16, 215–17policy 100political developments 113principles 62risk management 218Silbury Hill 44, 54, 268–9, 269statutory protection 97Stonehenge 208, 212Stonehenge Management Plan 2009

52targeting 207and utilities installation 99visitor and vehicle damage 100–1,

100

Conservation Area Statements 89

330 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and Figures

Conservation Areas 63, 89, 302(map), 313(map)

Conservation Areas audit 172, 236Conservation of Scheduled Monuments

in Cultivation (COSMIC) 108, 110, 215

Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (English Heritage) 57, 62, 105

Conservation Statement, Stonehenge 124

conservation statements 99, 181, 207Convention Concerning the Protection

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 55, 56

counter disaster preparedness 117Countess Farm 41, 69Countess Road 16Countryside Access Improvement Plan

134, 135, 176, 223Countryside and Rights of Way Act

2000 73Countryside Stewardship Scheme 48,

78, 108, 110Countryside Stewardship Special Project

47County Archaeology Service 67, 70County Wildlife Sites 41, 64–5Cranfield University 108creative art sector 151cremations 52cultural heritage 17–18cultural heritage values 37–8, 38

cultural influence 43cultural landscape 17–18, 103Cultural World Heritage Site 103Culture Media and Sport, Department

of 13, 14, 25, 58, 61Cursus, the 30, 286Cursus Barrow group 16, 106, 287Cursus earthworks 16Cursus Long Barrow 208cycling routes 133, 175-176Cycling Strategy 133

Ddamage and losses 28, 96

agriculture 107animal 109burrowing animals 96–7, 96, 109erosion 82root 109threats 99tourism 120–1, 121

traffic 104, 165–7vegetation 113vehicle 100, 100, 172–3, 173, 238visitor 100, 126–7, 126, 127

visitor erosion 126–7, 126

Darvill, Timothy 52, 53, 54data management 184–5data sharing 184, 242Defence, Ministry of 88

Army Basing 2020 programme 73Concordat governing the location

and construction of building for Ministry of Defence 284, 285, 285

Defra 108, 109, 114Delling Copse 23Design Principles, roads and traffic 162,

164–5Design Statements 62Destination Management and

Development Plan 120Destination Management Organisation

131development management

agriculture 88, 88

appropriate 11army basing programme 88Article 4 Directions 90buffer zones 93Conservation Areas 89development pressures 87English Heritage responsibilities 71–2houses and housing 89key issues 87–90light pollution 91Listed Buildings 89metal detecting 90planner training 90planning applications 87planning guidance 87potentially harmful permitted

development 89public sector cuts 91renewable energy 87–8setting 93–5, 94

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 87

telecommunications 88, 89–90tourist facilities and attractions 91utilities installation 89–90

Development Planning Documents 58, 59, 84

development pressures 27, 81, 87Devizes, Wiltshire Museum 25, 38, 51,

74, 74, 119, 129, 130, 138, 141, 142,

183, 222, 260Devizes Area Strategy 277Digging War Horse Project 43, 43

digital technology 140–1, 142, 226, 228disabled access 128–9, 221Dorset and East Devon Coast World

Heritage Site 196dry valleys 22Durrington Walls 16, 23, 26, 30, 33,

34, 287alignments 33car parking 170development management 94

information point 104land ownership 69Late Neolithic settlement 52postholes 53restoration 36road network 158setting 103, 105Wiltshire Council responsibility 70

Eearthwork enhancement 142earthwork surveys 53East Kennet Long Barrow 16, 27, 33,

35, 47, 92

Ecological Management Strategy for Visitor Access to the landscape 219

ecological value 13, 111economic benefit 11, 129–31, 220,

222–3accommodation 131Avebury 129regeneration opportunities 131Stonehenge 129Stonehenge Visitor Centre 222Tourist Information Centres 130–1

economic values 45–6, 45

education see learning provisioneducation projects 185, 185

Education Visits Officer 143educational resources, value 144educational value 43–4, 43, 46, 51Egeria Heritage Consulting 65enclosure 288–9endorsement 82, 192, 201–5English Heritage 28, 36, 46, 47, 49, 50,

51, 53, 77, 91, 108Conservation Principles 57, 62, 105conservation responsibilities 71development responsibilities 71–2interpretation of Stonehenge 138–

40

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and Figures

331

land ownership 69, 70learning provision 144Local Management Agreements 98operations responsibilities 72Research Department Reports 185role and responsibilities 71–2, 125,

147solstice management 137visitor management 119, 121, 129

English Heritage Interpretation Department 138

English Heritage Stonehenge Curatorial Unit 91

English Nature 64–5Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

Department for 47Environment Agency 113, 184environmental archaeology 104environmental conservation 97Environmental Impact Assessment 60,

62, 114, 269Environmental Stewardship 109Environmental Stewardship Scheme 78,

88, 112Equal opportunities statement 15Equality Act 2010 15erosion 82exhibitions 139–40, 139, 186, 227explore bus service 133- 4, 175Exploring the World Heritage: Stonehenge

and Avebury 139, 142, 144

FFalkner’s Circle 54family visitors 128Fargo Plantation 23, 116, 118–19, 133Fargo Road 104farming systems 76–8farms 46, 76Feeding Stonehenge Project 52fences and fence lines 106, 109, 213field systems 17, 22, 27, 47, 287, 288–9fieldwalkers 90fieldwork projects 179financial management 262Finds Liaison Officer 99First World War 289Follett, Barbara 50footfall management 126Forestry Commission 84, 114forestry management 78Fox Covert 16Fox Covert barrow group 34funding 70, 199

Avebury 69conservation 215Management Plan 188–9projects 69Stonehenge 68WHS Coordination Unit 69, 244

fundraising strategy 189funerary monuments 32Further Guidance on World Heritage Sites

(Department for Communities and Local Government) 12, 59

Fyfield 22Fyfield Down 22, 27, 35, 140Fyfield Down National Nature Reserve

(NNR) 16, 24, 39, 39, 47, 63–4, 112, 126, 140

access 135car parking 125, 171land ownership 70visitor data collection 127visitor management 126

Fyfield Down Site of Special Scientific Interest 40, 112

GGaffney, Vince 53Gass, Lady Elizabeth 66gateway signs 153–4, 153, 233Gathering Time dating causewayed

enclosures project 54General Permitted Development Order

(GPDO) 61Geoffrey of Monmouth 18, 27Geographical Information System (GIS)

14geophysical survey 36

Avebury 50, 54Stonehenge 53West Kennet Avenue 54

Get Wiltshire Walking 134global economic crisis, 2007 65goals 192, 198governance

changes in 52monitoring 244review 65–6role 197–8structure 66, 190

government departments, role and responsibilities 188

grain stores 88, 88

grassland 24, 214, 298(map)

grassland reversion 35, 37, 40, 41, 47, 48, 52, 77–8, 108, 108–9, 111, 214,

215, 270, 299(map), 310(map)

grazing management 214Great Barn, the 38, 42Great War, the 149Green Infrastructure Strategy 86Green Travel Plan 176Greenland Farm 69Grey Wethers (Sackville West) 19Guardianship scheme 143Guardianship Sites 62Guidance for the Sustainable

Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage) 62

Guidance on the Production of JSNA and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies, The 86

guided tours 141

Hhabitat survey 40–1

Avebury Stone Circle 316(map)

Stonehenge 305(map)

Hardy, Thomas 19Health, Department for 86Hemp Knoll 16Henge Hopper project 130, 175Henry of Huntingdon 18, 27Herepath, the 173Heritage and Arts Team, Wiltshire

Council 151Heritage at Risk Projection Officer

(HARPO) 101Heritage at Risk Register 97–8, 97, 109Heritage Cycle 177heritage designations


Stonehenge 302(map)

Heritage Impact Assessment 60Heritage Lottery Fund 51, 143, 150,

186Heritage Partnership Agreements 61,

109–10, 215Heritage Protection Bill 60–1, 97Heritage Statements 87

Hewetson Memorial 73

Hidden Landscapes Project 36, 43, 52, 53, 53, 142, 180, 183

Highways Agency 70, 156, 160historic assets 37–8Historic Buildings and Monuments

Commission for England 71Historic England 14, 46, 52, 62, 68, 97,

114Heritage Cycle 177

332 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and Figures

Heritage at Risk Register 97–8, 97

Heritage Partnership Agreements 109–10

role and responsibilities 71Section 42 licence 99Setting Guidance 60

Historic England Archives 38Historic England Designation Team 97historic environment

conservation 278cultural heritage values 37–8, 38

historic environment designations 62–3Historic Environment Field Adviser

(HEFA) 101‘Historic Environment Good Practice

Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (2014) 60

Historic Environment Record (HER) 14, 15, 38, 70, 184

historic environment values 20Historic Landscape Characterisations

103, 104, 209historical significance 25Histories of the Dead 54Hodge, Margaret 50houses and housing 22, 22, 89

IICOMOS 82, 87, 92, 105, 157, 161,

190, 267, 268, 269, 271–2ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism

Charter 120identity 152, 153–4, 226, 233–4impact assessments 87

influence 43information management 177, 241information provision 132, 133information sharing 187Inshaw, David 34Inspector of Ancient Monuments for

Wiltshire 91Institute for Archaeologists, Code of

Conduct 180integrity 27, 58

assessment 35impact of roads 156–8, 157, 158

intermittent vendors 91International Centre for the Study of

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) 82

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 82

interpretationactions 143

aims, policies and actions 226–8, 234–5

archives 142Avebury 140, 140, 143and digital technology 140–1, 142guided tours 141improving 193key issues 138–43monuments 142museums 141–2, 142

for non-English speakers 141off-site 141other values 141partners 138, 140review 139, 140, 227Stonehenge 143 strategy 29

Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy 29

interpretation and learning, Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 51

Interpretation and Learning Team 138–9

intervisibility, monuments 103intrusive structures, impact mitigation

212–13Iron Age activity 132, 287–8Ironbridge Gorge 56

JJacques, David 53joint events 189Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 86Jones, Inigo 27, 152

KKeiller, Alexander 54, 70, 289 Kennet, River 16, 21, 22, 41, 42, 112Kennet District Council 69, 89Kennet Local Plan 84, 171, 203, 275key issues 80

boundary review 91–3climate change 116–17, 117

community engagement 138, 148–56

conservation 95–101counter disaster preparedness 117development management 87–90interpretation 138–43learning provision 138, 143–7local government structure 83–4management and liaison 187–90monument management 98–101, 98

nature conservation 111–16

planning and policy 81–3planning system 83, 84–5research 177–87roads and traffic 156–77setting 101, 102–7, 104, 106

strategy concordance 85–6sustainable tourism 120–2visitor management 117–20, 122–38

King Barrow Ridge 22, 23, 33, 104, 116, 287, 289

King Barrows 30, 34Knoll Down 16Knowing Your Place (English Heritage)

148

LLake Barrows 16Lake House, Wilsford cum Lake 63Lalibela WHS, Ethiopia 55

land management 214–15land ownership 69

Avebury 70, 312(map)

restraints 132Stonehenge 69, 301(map)

Land Registry 14–15land tenure 76land use 112, 298(map), 309(map)

landform 22landscape 13, 38–9, 102

access 123–4agricultural 23–4, 24

archaeology and land use 17–18authenticity 36Avebury 102biodiversity values 39chalk downland 104Character Assessment 39character classification 21–2,

304(map), 315(map)

conservation 22, 278cultural 17–18Habitat Survey 40–1historic assets 37–8history 181influence of 18–19key characteristics 22management guidelines 21–2modern features 22–3monument complexes 17monuments in 33National Character Areas 39, 102,

104, 113National Nature Reserves 39–40pressures on 103

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 Facts and Figures

333

regional context 20–1research 181Sites of Special Scientific Interest 40Special Areas of Conservation 40Special Protection Areas 40Stonehenge 102Stonehenge, c1600BC 17

topography 22types 39Wiltshire Core Strategy 278without parallel 34, 37working 129see also setting

Landscape Access Strategy 134, 135, 168, 171, 174, 223

landscape and nature conservation designations 63–5, 64, 303(map), 314(map)

Landscape Assessment, Avebury 21Landscape Character Assessment 39landscape character classification 21–2,

304(map), 315(map)

Landscape Conservation Framework for Wiltshire and Swindon 113

landscape interpretation panels 132

landscape management 47–8, 47

guidelines 21–2Landscape Strategy 104, 209, 210Lansdowne Monument 23Larkhill 37, 41, 61

Concordat governing the location and construction of building for Ministry of Defence 284, 285, 285

Larkhill Aircraft Hangars 37Larkhill Garrison 23, 73, 88, 116, 132Larkhill Primary School Site. 70Larkhill sewage works 106, 212laser scan survey 101Later Silbury Project 54Lawton, Sir John 113Layers of Larkhill project 148LEADER Programme 189Learning and Participation Framework

128learning provision

actions 146aims, policies and actions 229–31Avebury 143, 145, 145, 146, 230education projects 185, 185

educational resources 144English Heritage 144key issues 138, 143–7partnerships 143–4, 145primary and secondary 146, 230

residential study centre 145–6Silbury Hill 146

Stonehenge 143, 144, 144, 146, 230tertiary 146, 230

Leicester, University of 43, 54Lesser Cursus, the 22, 30, 33, 69, 142Leüth, Fritz 53, 54lifelong learning 143light pollution 35, 81, 91, 94, 158, 164,

204Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

model 49, 117, 122, 133, 176, 220Listed Building Consent 89Listed Buildings 37, 38, 63, 89, 97,

302(map), 313(map)

Living Landscapes Initiative 113local amenities 75–6local authority, role and responsibilities

188local community 25, 45, 75

economic benefit 129–31, 129

role and responsibilities 74–6as stakeholders 187see also community engagement

Local Development Framework 28, 59Local Development Plan 74Local Development Scheme (LDS) 84local government structure, key issues

83–4Local Management Agreements (LMA)

48, 70, 98, 125Local Management and Loan Agreement

143Local Nature Partnerships (LNP) 86,

113Local Planning Authority, protection

responsibility 28local Steering Committees 66, 68Localism Act, 2011 58, 83, 148location 15–16, 296(map)

logo 153

Longstones Cove 34, 47, 140Longstones Enclosure 31, 286Longstones Field 54Longstones project 36Ludwig Boltzmann Institute 43, 53

MManagement Agreements 98management and liaison

actions 189aims, policies and actions 243–4cross site coordination 189funding 188–9

governance structure 190key issues 187–90landscape guidelines 21–2monitoring and review 189–90monitoring indicators 190

Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE) guidelines 180

Management Planaims 10, 13data sources 14–15delivery 196development 13–14, 14

draft 14endorsement 82, 192, 201–5Equal Opportunities Statement 15function 12–15funding 188–9implementation 187, 194, 196,

197–8, 243, 262key issues 80monitoring and review 189–90monitoring indicators 190need for 12participation 12principles 196public consultation 14, 82, 263–5purpose 13review 187, 188, 197, 243revision 67, 262status 13strategy concordance 85–6structure 13

Management Plan Project Board 80management principles 196management requirements 28–9management system 12, 70, 82

Operational Guidelines 57Managing Cultural World Heritage

(UNESCO) 82, 82

Manor Reborn, The (TV) programme) 119, 125

Marden 16, 54marketing 153Marlborough Area Strategy 277Marlborough Downs Nature

Improvement Area (NIA 20, 39, 54–5, 65, 113, 287

Medieval and post-medieval activity 132, 288–9

Megalith WHS Newsletter 46, 46, 90, 152, 234

Mesolithic activity 286message 233–4


metal detecting 90, 99, 208military activity 22, 73, 73, 88, 132,

141, 289modern development 35, 37moles 96Monarch of the Plain barrow 116monitoring 57–8, 194

aims, policies and actions 244arrangements 189–90conservation 101governance 244indicators 49, 101, 190, 209, 244

Monitoring World Heritage (UNESCO) 190

Monkton Down 22monument management

Condition Survey 98–9, 98

conservation 98–101, 98

Management Agreements 98responsibilities 98

monumentsinterpretation 142intervisibility 103presentation 142visibility 142, 213, 228, 306(map),

317(map)

Moore, Henry 19mortuary culture 27, 33, 181movable artefacts 25museum collections 38

Collections Development Policies 183

NNash, David 54Nash, Paul 19, 34national agencies, role and

responsibilities 188National Archives 38National Character Areas 39, 102, 104,

113National Council for Metal Detecting

99National Heritage Act, 1983 71National Heritage List for England 96,

97National Monuments Record 38, 184,

241National Nature Reserves (NNR)

39–40, 63–4National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949 63, 73National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) 28, 59–60, 59, 83, 94, 158

National Trust 16, 28, 36, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 67, 68, 77, 119, 123, 170

archaeological advice 189Guardianship scheme 143land ownership 69, 70learning provision 145Local Management Agreements 98rangers 150role and responsibilities 72, 125, 187solstice management 136, 137Stonehenge and Avebury

Archaeologist 68visitor management 121, 122

National Trust Stonehenge Landscape intern programme 143

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project planning process 161

Natural England 29, 52, 64–5, 78, 108, 114

community engagement 147funding 188–9land ownership 70and metal detecting 99New Deal for National Trails 120role and responsibilities 72–3, 113

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 41, 64, 72

Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) 113

nature conservationactions 114, 116aims, policies and actions 215–17chalk grassland 112–13key issues 111–16political developments 113scrub 113–14woodland 114–16, 115

Nature Conservation Strategy 64–5Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) 65Negotiating Avebury Project 50, 54Neighbourhood Development Plans

148–9Neighbourhood Plans 58, 59, 83Neolithic activity 286–7New Deal for National Trails, Natural

England 120New Discovery Visits 51New Environmental Land Management

Scheme 108New King Barrows 16New King Barrow Plantation 23New Model for English Heritage 62Nile Clumps 41

non-English speakers, needs 141, 226Normanton Down 33, 41Normanton Down Barrow Cemetery

16, 30, 34, 69, 100Normanton Down ridgelines 22North Wessex Downs Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 20, 28, 38, 63, 73, 95, 102, 175

Management Plan 85, 85

road impact 163Transport Strategy 162visitor data collection 127visitor management 120

OObama, Barack 32

off-site interpretation 141Old Kings Barrow 16Operational Guidelines for the

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO) 12, 35, 57, 57, 82, 93

oral history project 148, 187, 232orientation and dispersal points 133Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) 10,

11, 12, 18, 24–5attributes 32–4authenticity of attributes 36–7impact of roads on 156–7Management Plan 13Statement 24, 25, 26–30, 32, 46, 58,

156–7, 272sustaining 193and woodland 115

overseas visitors 128Overton Downs 22, 23, 287Overton Hill Barrow Cemetery 22, 31,

33, 47, 47, 104, 105, 161, 288Article 4 Directions 282–3conservation 211road safety 168

ownership 28Oxford Archaeology 108

PPackway, the 15pagan observances, access 49

see also solstice managementPalaeolithic activity 286Parker Pearson, Mike 52, 53–4parking management, Avebury

Management Plan, 2005 49see also car parking

Parks and Gardens of Special Historic


335

Interest 63, 63

Parsonage Down National Nature Reserve (NNR) 39–40

partner organisations 266and the annual action plan 197interpretation 138, 140key 198lead 198learning provision 143–4, 145policy and guidance 84range 196visitor management 119–20WHS Coordination Unit 197

partnership working 196, 197Periodic Report on Europe 25periodic reporting 58, 158, 190, 244Pewsey Down National Nature Reserve

(NNR) 40Piggledene 112Piper, John 34

placement, of monuments 33–4planner training 90Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990 28planning and policy

key issues 81–3, 83, 84–5roads and traffic 158UNESCO Policies and Guidance

81–3planning and policy framework 48,

58–60, 87, 273–9changes 58–9Stonehenge Management Plan 2009

51planning applications 12, 87planning authorities 12, 83Planning Circular 07/09 59planning guidance 13, 87planning policy officers 90Planning Policy Statement 5 94Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 59,

83plough damage 77policy framework 13population, local 45potentially harmful permitted

development 89presentation, monuments 142preservation, state of 33priorities 11, 198priority habitats 41private bodies 266project board 14project funding 69

promotional activity 122protected species 42, 42

protection requirements 28–9public access 221, 223–5

actions 135Avebury Management Plan, 2005 49charitable events 134cycling 133digital 134explore bus service 133-4integrated approach 134orientation and dispersal points 133restraints 132sustainable 225visitor management 132–5, 132,

133

see also accesspublic awareness 132public bodies 266public rights of way 29, 175–6public sector cuts 91public transport 123, 130, 133, 134,

170, 174–7, 174, 238–9

Rrabbits 96rail links 174, 174

reactive monitoring 57–8reconstruction 105, 210recreational value 44, 44

Red Lion Public Realm Scheme 169redundant structures 106, 212regeneration opportunities 222Regional Character Areas 20regional landscape characterisations

307(map)

regional landscape context 20–1related policies and actions 199renewable energy 87–8, 117, 277–8reptiles 42research 13

actions 182, 184, 186, 187aims 180–1aims, policies and actions 240–3approval process 180archive storage 183–4Avebury 178

Avebury Management Plan, 2005 49–50

best practice 180burials and barrows 181ceremonial monuments 181curation 183–4data management 184–5

data sharing 184, 242definition 178excavation 179fieldwork 179fieldwork projects 178, 178

findings access 184–5framework 180–1human remains 181importance 177–9information management 177,

241–2innovation 179international links 182intrusive 179key issues 177–87landscape 181other areas 186–7, 186, 243principles 179public benefit 185–6, 185, 194public engagement 242, 260reporting 184–5review 184–5social life 181Stonehenge 178

Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 51–2

sustainable 177, 179–80, 183, 194, 240

themes 181WHS guidance 179–80

Research Agenda 49–50Research Framework see Stonehenge

and Avebury Research Framework (SARF)

research values 42–3restoration 105, 210review process 12Richards, Julian 43, 148Ridgeway, the 24, 33, 47, 173, 173,

288, 289Ridgeway National Trail 48, 104, 120,

178, 208, 238Ridgeway Surface Protection Group 48,

173, 178Ridgeway National Trail Partnership

120rights of way 29, 175–6risk assessment 208risk management 117, 218Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods

Project 54Riverside Project 43road safety 164–5, 167, 167–9, 168,

172


Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984 167, 173

roads and traffic 23, 27, 104A303/A30/A358 corridor feasibility

study 160–1actions 172, 173, 176aims, policies and actions 235–9byways 159, 172–3, 174, 208, 238car parking 169–72, 171, 172car parking, Avebury 172car parking, Stonehenge 172clutter 164–5crossing points 167–8, 237damage 165–7Design Principles 162, 164–5impact 11, 29, 35, 37, 51, 82, 104,

105, 156–8, 157, 158, 161, 163, 163, 172

impact mitigation 163–4, 164, 194, 235–8

impact of development 165key issues 156–77light pollution 158, 164management 156network 156network, Avebury 161, 172, 236–8network, Stonehenge 158, 159–61,

160, 172, 236planning policy and guidance 158public transport 174–7, 174, 238–9responsibility for 70safety 164–5, 167, 167–9, 168, 172,

237signage 164–5, 165

Signing Audit 165speed 168–9traffic counts 159traffic volume 156, 158–9, 161–2World Heritage Bureau reports


269–72see also individual roads; traffic

managementRobin Hood’s Ball 35, 93, 286Roman activity 132, 288Rough Leaze 54Rox Hill 16Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

28, 41, 52, 69, 73–4, 144

Rural Development Service 78

SSackville West, Vita 19

Sacred Sites Forum (SSF) 49St. James Church 81

Salisbury, South Wiltshire Museum 25Salisbury Cathedral 118Salisbury District Special Landscape

Area (SLA) 39Salisbury Museum 38, 51, 74, 119, 119,

129, 130, 138, 141, 142, 183, 222, 260Salisbury Plain 23, 40, 73Salisbury Plain Training Area 24, 73, 88,

289Finds Liaison Officer 99

Saltaire World Heritage Site Environmental Capacity Study 94

Sanctuary, the 31, 33, 104, 105, 125, 140, 142, 161, 168, 170, 211, 286

sarsen fields 22, 39, 39

sarsen stone 22

Saxon activity 38, 132, 288Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC)/

licence 241, 242Scheduled Monuments 18, 62,

302(map), 313(map)

conservation statements 99identification 97review 207

scheduled protection 36screening 115–16, 212–13, 218scrub 113–14, 115, 211, 213Second World War 289setting

actions 105, 106, 107aims, policies and actions 205–6aircraft intrusion 105barrow groups 102buffer zones 93, 94development management 93–5, 94

fence lines 106impact of roads 156–8, 157, 158

importance 94interim indication 95intervisibility 103modern clutter 105redundant structures 106roads 104, 104

undergrounding of cables 106viewpoints 103visual relationships 102Wiltshire Core Strategy 274, 275see also landscape

Setting Guidance, Historic England 60Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic

England) 93–4, 158Setting Study 27, 35, 48, 81, 84, 92,

94–5, 103, 103–4, 205–6settlements 17, 22, 38, 45

Bronze Age 287Durrington Walls 52Medieval and post-medieval activity

288Neolithic 287Saxon 288Stonehenge 74

Sheffield, University of 43, 183signage 106, 210, 227signage strategy 153, 153, 233significance 24–5

statement of 25, 58Silbury Hill 10, 11, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33,

34, 55, 94, 104, 125access 106, 106

archaeological importance 17artistic influence 34car parking 125, 170community engagement 149

conservation 36, 44, 54, 211, 212, 268–9, 269, 286

interpretation 44learning provision 146


research projects 50road impact 161road safety 168

Saxon period 288setting key actions 105siting 33spiritual resonance 44stabilisation 47, 48

tunnelling 36visitor erosion 126–7World Heritage Bureau reports

268–9, 269Silbury Hill Conservation Project 47, 48

Silbury Hill Project 146

Silbury Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest 40

Sites of Special Scientific Interest 40, 63–4

Skanska Construction 47skies, the 33, 37social value 45solstice management 135–7, 135, 136,

137, 225Solstice Operational Planning 49Solstice Park 23, 94Sounds of Stonehenge Project 52South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury 25


337

Southampton, University of 43, 54SPACES project (the Strumble

Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study) 43, 52–3

Spatial Planning system 28Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

40, 64, 64

Special Landscape Area policy 64Special Project agri-environment funding

109Special Protection Areas (SPAs) 40, 64Specific Historic Environment options

109Spending Review, 2013 160spiritual associations 27, 44, 44

stakeholders 187, 198, 262standards 291Statement of Authenticity 58Statement of Community Involvement

(Wiltshire Council) 14Statement of Integrity 58Statement of Outstanding Universal

Value 25, 26–30, 32, 46, 58, 103, 156–7

and damage 165key protection and management

requirements 81–2World Heritage Committee adoption

272‘Statement of Principles Governing

Archaeological Work’ 179, 290–1Statement of Significance 25, 58, 271statutory plans, relationship to 60statutory protection 97Stepping Stones project 113Stones Of Stonehenge Project 52Stonehenge 10, 18, 194

access 45, 132, 219, 300(map)

agriculture 76aims, policies and actions 208, 210,

212, 218, 224, 227, 230, 236, 239alignments 33, 37, 103archaeological description 286–9archaeological importance 17Article 4 Directions 61, 280,

302(map)

artistic influence 34, 37Aubrey Holes 286authenticity 28, 36boundaries 15–16, 27boundary reassessment 35, 92–3car parking 135, 169–70, 172, 224,

236, 300(map)

carvings 53

changing perceptions of 19community engagement 147, 148,

149, 151conservation 100, 208, 212Conservation Area 302(map)

Conservation Statement 99, 124, 208

construction 286Cuckoo Stone 53earthwork surveys 53economic benefit 129Education Visits Officer 143fence lines 106funding 68geophysical survey 53grass management 123grassland reversion 78, 299(map)

habitat survey 305(map)

heritage designations 302(map)

Hidden Landscapes Project 53, 53

influence of 18–19integrity 35interpretation 44, 138–40, 138,

139, 143, 227key landscape characteristics 22land ownership 69, 301(map)

land use 298(map)

landscape 102landscape access 123–4landscape and nature conservation

designations 303(map)

landscape c1600BC 17

landscape character classification 304(map)

landscape types 21laser survey 53, 101learning provision 143, 144, 146, 230local community 74–5location 15, 15, 296(map)


monitoring indicators 190Obama visit 32

permanent grassland 109petrological analysis 53–4planning applications 87public transport 174, 174, 239redundant structures 106regional landscape context 20research 178

restoration 36risk assessment 208road network 23, 158, 159–61, 160,

172, 236

road safety 167, 168Saxon period 288Scheduled Monuments 18,

302(map)

seasonal visitor patterns 123–4setting key actions 105shuttle system 118

solstice management 136, 137SPACES project (the Strumble

Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study) 52

speed limits 168spiritual resonance 44, 44

status 32Stone Circle Access scheme 123topography 22traffic volume 156, 158–9vehicle damage 101, 173virtual access 123vision 36visitor centre impact 104, 105visitor damage 100, 101, 127visitor data collection 127visitor facilities 69visitor management 118–19, 118,

122, 123–4visitor numbers 10, 45, 118, 123,

159visitor transport 174visual sensitivity 306(map)

Wiltshire Core Strategy 273–4, 276at Winter Solstice 36

woodland 78, 289woodland clearance 116, 218World Heritage Bureau reports


267, 269–72World Heritage Site (WHS) 10,

297(map)

Stonehenge (Turner) 19Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated

Sites World Heritage Site 10, 62archaeological description 286–9

Stonehenge Advisory Forum 80Stonehenge Aerodrome 132Stonehenge and Avebury Archaeological

Research Framework 146Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and

Outreach Group (SALOG) 144, 229, 230

Stonehenge and Avebury Learning and Outreach Network Group (SALONG) 144


Stonehenge and Avebury local committees 188

Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework 46

Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework (SARF) 15, 29, 42–3, 49–50, 52, 67, 68, 107, 152, 177, 179–80, 240, 260

aims 180–1implementation 181 international research links 182research themes 181

Stonehenge and Avebury Standing Conference 182

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Condition Survey 15 46, 47, 49, 68, 96, 97, 98–9, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 109, 126, 172–3, 206, 207, 209

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Management Plan Project Board 65–6, 198

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Partnership Panel 29, 52, 66, 68, 152–3, 182, 189, 196, 197, 198

Chair 68, 152, 258, 259membership 256terms of reference 258

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Steering Committees 14, 25, 52, 58, 65, 80, 82, 182, 196, 197

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS website 46, 144, 152, 185, 234, 242

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Survey 15, 15

Stonehenge Article 4 Direction Area 61, 208

Stonehenge Avenue 16, 23, 26, 27, 30, 33, 52, 123, 142, 287

Stonehenge Conservation Statement 101, 208

Stonehenge Curatorial Unit 46, 68Stonehenge Cursus 17, 26, 33, 52Stonehenge Down 41, 111

Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (SEIP) 23, 50–1, 123, 124, 133, 138, 159

Stonehenge Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy 51, 134, 135, 138, 138, 139, 144, 224, 227, 230

Stonehenge Landscape project 36Stonehenge Learning and Outreach

Coordination Group (SLOCG) 51, 143–4, 150

Stonehenge Management Plan 2000 12,

93, 180, 290Stonehenge Management Plan 2009 12,

13, 14, 32, 60–1, 80, 81, 83, 92, 93, 97, 117, 172, 190, 276

and the A303 160archaeological research 51–2conservation 52evaluation 46–7, 50–2, 50, 51

interpretation and learning 51planning policy 51priorities 50Stonehenge 148

Stonehenge Museums Partnership 119Stonehenge Regulations 1997 63, 292-3Stonehenge Research Framework 52, 179Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP) 52,

103–4, 183, 287Stonehenge Tour Bus 129–30, 174, 174

Stonehenge Traffic Action Group (STAG) 159

Stonehenge Visitor Centre 29, 43, 45, 69, 83, 91, 104, 118–19, 118, 141, 219

car parking 236community engagement 149economic benefit 222exhibitions 139–40, 139, 186, 227impact 104, 105, 123impact review 210learning provision 144, 149, 232local residents free entry 232museum galleries 130popularity 170visitor transport 169

World Heritage Bureau reports 268Stonehenge WHS: A Strategy for

Interpretation, Learning and Participation 2010–2015 138, 138

Stonehenge WHS Advisory Forum 67Stonehenge WHS Committee 66–7

membership 257terms of reference 257–8

Stonehenge WHS Coordinator 67Stonehenge WHS Landscape and

Planning Study 21Stonehenge WHS Management Plan

Implementation Group 66Stonehenge WHS Management Plan

Review 2013 263Stonehenge WHS Steering Committee

67Stones and Bones Discovery Visit 143Stones of Stonehenge Project 54strategic objectives

actions 154–5implementation 154–5, 154

Strategic Road Network 160study centre 235Stukeley, William 18, 18, 19, 27, 34, 38sun barrow, the 37Supplementary Planning Documents

(SPDs) 48, 59, 81, 84, 87, 202Supplementary Planning Guidance 83Sustainable Access Strategy 174sustainable archaeological research 11Sustainable Community Strategies 85

sustainable construction 277sustainable development 82sustainable management 11sustainable research 177, 179–80, 183,

194, 240sustainable tourism 49, 84, 219–21

definition 120key issues 120–2wise growth 121–2

Sustainable Tourism Strategy 121, 133, 175, 220, 239

sustainable transport 169, 238–9Sustainable Transport Strategy 134,

174, 176, 176–7sustainable travel 158, 174–7, 174

Sustrans 133, 176Swallowhead Springs 44

Ttask and finish groups 197telecommunications management 88,

89–90Tess of the d’Urbervilles (Hardy) 19threats 80timescales 198tourism 45

damage 120–1, 121

economic benefit 117, 121, 125, 129–31, 129, 220, 222–3

impact 121see also sustainable tourism; visitor

managementtourist accommodation 131, 222, 275tourist facilities and attractions 91Tourist Information Centres 49, 126,

130, 223Town and Country Planning Acts 28, 58Town and Country Planning (Local

Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 58

Traffic and Visitor Management group (TVM) 67, 162


339

traffic management 48–9, 84, 104

aims, policies and actions 235–9Avebury Management Plan, 2005

48–9, 162see also roads and traffic

traffic volume 159, 162Avebury 161–2Stonehenge 158–9

transport 129–30transport policy 158Transport Strategy 48–9, 68, 125, 133,

135, 140, 156, 162–4, 162, 171, 172Turner, J M W 19Twitter account 152

UUK National Commission for UNESCO

(UKNC) 56UNESCO 13, 80

brief description 16international research links 182Mission and Strategic Objectives

55–6monitoring 57–8Operational Guidelines 24, 57, 57

policies and guidance 55–8, 81–3resource manuals 82Strategic Objectives (SO) 55World Heritage Bureau 267–9World Heritage Committee 5, 14,

51, 57–8, 92, 93, 116, 147, 154–5, 267, 269–72

World Heritage Convention obligations 57

UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 12

United Kingdom, World Heritage properties: 272

United Nations World Tourism Organisation 120

utilities installation 89–90, 99, 106, 207

VValues and Voices, WHS Residents’ Pack

37, 49, 147–8Vespasian’s Camp 37–8, 41, 52, 53, 97,

132, 286, 288, 289viewpoints 103virtual access, Stonehenge 123visibility, monuments 142, 213, 228,

306(map), 317(map)

vision 10, 36, 201, 219Visit North Wessex Downs Toolkit 120

visitor erosion 126–7, 126

visitor facilities 205Avebury 275ownership, Stonehenge 69Woodhenge 170

visitor management 29accommodation 131, 222, 275actions 128, 131, 135, 137aims, policies and actions 219–26Avebury 119, 122, 124–5, 124, 221charitable events 134–5coach tours 125code of respect 122, 221damage and losses 126–7data collection 127–8disabled access 128–9, 221families 128Fyfield Down NNR 126

honey pot sites 118impact mitigation 220information provision 132, 133key issues 117–20, 122–38non-English speakers 141, 227orientation and dispersal points 133overnight stays 119overseas visitors 128partners 119–20pre-booking 119public access 132–5, 132, 133,

223–5recent developments 118–20seasonal patterns 123–4solstice management 135–8, 135,

225Stonehenge 118–19, 118, 122,

123–4Tourist Information Centres 126,

130–1, 223wise growth 121–2see also tourism

visitor numbers 91, 219Avebury 10, 45, 125, 161Stonehenge 10, 45, 118, 123, 159

visitor survey, 2013 175VisitWiltshire 117, 117, 119–20, 119,

123, 129, 130, 131, 141, 152, 220, 222VisitWiltshire Economic Impact Study

118visual relationships 102, 287visual sensitivity


Stonehenge 306(map)

volunteers and volunteering 150, 150, 187–8, 198, 231

Volunteers Together events 150, 150

WWaden Hill 22, 24, 47, 54Wainwright, Geoffrey 52walkers 175

Walkers’ Map 46walking route 134Water Framework Directive 113water voles 42website 46, 144, 152, 185, 234, 242Wessex Archaeology 51, 114, 144, 180Wessex Chalk Forum 113West Amesbury 52West Kennet Avenue 23, 27, 31, 33,

34, 104, 142, 287archaeological description 286Avenue to Learning project 145and the B4003 165–7, 166, 172conservation 211excavation 54

geophysical survey 54Medieval and post-medieval activity

288, 289restoration 36

West Kennet Long Barrow 10, 16, 20, 27, 31, 33, 34, 44, 47, 50, 95, 102

car parking 170conservation 211impact mitigation 164interior 61

restoration 105road impact 161setting key actions 105

West Kennet Palisade Enclosures 16, 33, 34, 35, 47, 107, 161, 164, 286

West Wiltshire Downs AONB 149WHS Article 1(5) Land 61WHS Coordination Unit 8, 14, 43, 46–

7, 52, 67–8, 68, 82, 99, 108, 111, 155annual action plan 243financial management 262funding 69, 189, 244and learning provision 146Management Plan review 188partner organisations 197role 197, 262staff 262strategy concordance 85

WHS Liaison Group 197WHS Partnership Panel 80WHS Residents’ Pack 73, 232Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 63Wildlife Sites Partnership 64


Wildlife Trust 113Wilsford cum Lake, Lake House 63Wilsford Shaft 287Wiltshire & Swindon Local Enterprise

Partnership (LEP) 131Wiltshire & Swindon Visitor

Accommodation Futures 131Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre

38, 67Wiltshire and Swindon Local Nature

Partnership 113Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural

History Society (WANHS) 69, 185, 242

Wiltshire Biodiversity Action Plan (2008) 64

Wiltshire Core Strategy 28, 39, 64, 70, 81, 83–4, 87, 89, 94, 122, 158, 171, 203, 273–9

Wiltshire Council 46–7, 52, 68Archaeology Service 69, 70, 91, 180Arts Development Team 151Arts Service 70Community Area Boards 70Heritage and Arts Team 151Historic Environment Record (HER)

14, 15role and responsibilities 70, 164–5,

188Statement of Community Involvement

14Transport Strategy 162

Wiltshire Council Unitary Authority 65, 83

Wiltshire Countryside, General Manager 65

Wiltshire county 103Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes 25Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011–

2026 86, 86, 133, 176Wiltshire Museum, Devizes 38, 51, 74,

74, 119, 129, 130, 138, 141, 142, 183, 222, 260

Wiltshire State of the Environment Report 86

Wiltshire Structure Plan 163Wiltshire Wildlife Sites Survey 64–5Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 65Wind Turbine Sensitivity Study 85

Windmill Hill 10, 16, 22, 33, 35, 38, 54, 125, 286

Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure 17, 74

Windmill Hill Plantation 23

Winterbourne 22Winterbourne Monkton 22Winterbourne Stoke 22Winterbourne Stoke Barrow Cemetery

16, 23, 30

Winterbourne Stoke Clump 23wise growth 121–2Wood, John 19Woodhenge 16, 33

alignments 33car parking 170interpretation 142land ownership 69landscape interpretation panels 132

setting 103, 105, 211visitor facilities 170

woodland 23, 41–2, 289Avebury 78clearance 105, 115, 211, 218conservation 114–16, 115

coverage 78functions 78historic 41management 78, 115, 116, 217–18and Outstanding Universal Value

(OUV) 115policies 115screen planting 115, 115–16Stonehenge 78, 289

Woodland Grant Scheme applications 114

Woodland Strategy 29, 37, 41, 42, 46, 68, 73, 84, 104, 113–4, 114–16, 184, 214, 217

World Heritage Bureau, reports 267–9World Heritage Centre, Paris 58World Heritage Committee 14, 51,

57–8, 92, 93, 116, 147reports 267, 269–72strategic objectives 154–5

World Heritage Convention 24, 81, 96, 147, 196

World Heritage Convention obligations 57

World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 18World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

(UNESCO) 18World Heritage in Danger List Periodic

Reporting 57World Heritage interpretation centre

155, 155

World Heritage List, inscription criteria 26–7

World Heritage properties:, United

Kingdom 272World Heritage Property policy 28World Heritage Site Committee 98World Heritage Steering Committee

261World Heritage UK Forum 155Wroughton Copse 23, 41

Yatesbury 132

The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site is globally important for its unique and dense concentration of outstanding prehistoric monuments and sites, which together form a landscape without parallel. The World Heritage Site Management Plan provides a framework and long-term strategy for the protection of the World Heritage Site for present and future generations. The primary aim of the Plan is to protect the Site’s Outstanding Universal Value, taking into account other interests such as farming, nature conservation, tourism, research, education and the local community.